MASTER 
NEGA  TIVE 

NO.  91-80174 


I 


MICROFILMED  1991 
COLUMBIA  UNIVERSITY  LIBRARIES/NEW  YORK 


as  part  of  the 
Foundations  of  Western  Civilization  Preservation  Project 


Funded  by  the 
NATIONAL  ENDOWMENT  FOR  THE  HUMANITIES 


Reproductions  may  not  be  made  without  permission  from 

Columbia  University  Library 


COPYRIGHT  STATEMENT 

The  copyright  law  of  the  United  States  -  Title  17,  United 
States  Code  --  concerns  the  making  of  photocopies  or  other 
reproductions  of  copyrighted  material... 

Columbia  University  Library  reserves  the  right  to  refuse  to 
accept  a  copy  order  if,  in  its  judgement,  fulfillment  of  the  order 
would  mvolve  violation  of  the  copyright  law. 


A  UTHOR : 

L,  B. 


TITLE: 


DOCTRINE  OF  ENERGY; 
A  THEORY  OF  REALITY  . 


PLACE: 


LONDON 


DA  TE : 


1898 


COLUMBIA  UNIVERSITY  LIBRARIES 
PRESERVATION  DEPARTMENT 

BIBLIOGRAPHIC  MTCROFORM  TAR^FT 


Original  Material  as  Filmed  -  Existing  Bibliographic  Record 


Master  Negative  # 


(8      L.,         B. 

^''         .    Dociime 
ot    rsalliy... 

London  18^6. 


L. 

of    enerou,  a  iln 


eor 


/ 


1 


B.      9  t  108 


P' 


'. 


Restrictions  on  Use: 

TECHMCAL~MiCROFORM  DATA  ~ 

FILM     SIZE:___3S-^r::V^_                   REDUCTION     RATIO-            U )( 
IMAGE  PLACEMENT:    lA  TiIa)  IB     IIB  u^xiuiN     KAUO. VA 

Sfx^iL  r^^^°--^^X INITIALS        1^1^ 

FILMED  BY:    RESEARCH  PI  /bLICATION.S.  TNC  WOnnRiirnnp7FT 


c 


Association  for  Information  and  image  IManagement 

1100  Wayne  Avenue,  Suite  1100 
Silver  Spring,  Maryland  20910 

301/587-8202 


Centimeter 

1         2        3 


Lil 


llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll 


I       [ 


Inches 


T 


5         6         7        8 

iiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiilii 


ni 


M^ 


1.0 


M 


1.25 


9        10 

iiiliiiiliiiilini 


11 


1 1 1 1 1 


15.6 


3.2 


163 


3.6 

4.0 


1.4 


2.5 


2.2 


2.0 


.8 


1.6 


12       13       14       15    mm 

iiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliml 


5 


1 


MflNUFPCTURED   TO   RUM   STfiNDRRDS 
BY  fiPPLIED  IMAGE.    INC. 


IL 


immf^ 


J    *H 


The  Doctrine 


-■'..f 


OF  Energy 


ilf--. 


'-*--' 


11^ 


Kegan  Paul,Trench,TrUbner§C? 


i—<»» 


TT& 


BIT 


ill  tftc  (jUittj  of  l^cttr  ^JovTi 

library 


GIVEN    BY 


PTotJM.Caltell. 


BY  THE    SAME  AUTHOR. 
Small  Crown  8vo. 

^'^^'^^  ^^^  ENERGY:  Are  these  two 
Beal  Things  m  the  Physical  Universe  ?  Beinj?  an 
examination  of  the  fundamental  conceptions  of 
Physical  Science. 


By  an  areument  which  is  well  worthy  of  attention, 

he  seeks  to  show  that  all  matter  of  which  we  have  any 

knowledge  IS  merely  a  manifestation  of  Energy,  and  in 

tact,  that  Matter  is  moribund,  and  Energy  'the  real 

*rJ^?.**' J^®  future.'  .  .  .  The  little  book  is  very  read- 
able.  — Scotsman. 

*v"  Pi®  hrochure  is  the  work  of  a  man  conversant  with 
the  data  of  the  problem  he  aims  to  solve,  and  is  written 
with  considerable  ability.  Most  of  its  philosophic 
readers  would  be  tempted  to  class  it  with  Berkeley's 
Idealism,  but  the  author  deprecates  such  a  classiflca- 
tion.  We  are  Ukely  to  hear  more  of  this  subject,  pro- 
bably, also,  more  of  B.  L,  Jj."— Academy. 

"  A  bold  attempt  and  one  not  without  interest.  .  .  . 
It  seems  a  pity  that  the  writer  of  a  book  which  claims 
to  be  an  important  addition  to  scientific  literature, 
should  not  give  the  world  the  satisfaction  of  knowing 
his  name."— Bradford  Observer. 

"We  hope  it  will  be  as  widely  read  and  as  much  appre- 
ciated  as  it  undoubtedly  deserves."— Literary  World. 

"  A  bright  and  clever  little  essay."- I>«nde«  Advertiser. 

A  few  copies  of  this  work  can  still  be  had  on  appli- 
cation to  the  publishers.    Price  5/-  each  nett. 


I 


THE 


DOCTRINE  OF  ENERGY 


J    THEORY  OF  REALITY 


BY 

B.  L.  L. 

i  <  > 


I 


"  Philotophff  did  ttrain 

Her  lidlest  eyes  for  thee." 


Sesllbt. 


LONDON 

KEGAN  PAUL,  TRENCH,  TRUBNER  &  CO.,  Ltd. 
Pateenosteb  House,  Chabinq  Cross  Road 

1898 


C7 

A 


LONDON . 

PRINTED   BY  GILBERT  AND   RIVINGTON,  LD., 

ST.    JOHN'S    HOUSE,    CLERKENWELL    ROAD,    E.O 


iq  yap  a^puM-aToc  rc  koX  aax^^arterrof  xai  aya^Tjc  ovaia  omut  oScra 
i^vxfc  Kv/ScpfT^ri;  /utofip  0eai7)  vw,  rrcpl  j^f  to  t^s  dAi]0ovs  eirto'Ti]/uii]; 
Y«Vof,  TOVTOi'  exet  toi'  ronov, — Ph£DBVS. 

"  Substance  in  space  we  are  cognizant  of  only  through  forces 
operative  in  it,  either  drawing  others  towards  itself  (attraction),  or 
preventing  others  from  forcing  into  itself  (repulsion  and  impene- 
trabiUty).  We  know  no  other  properties  that  make  up  the  con- 
ception of  substance  phsenomenal  in  space,  and  which  we  term 
matter."— Kakt,  "  Critique." 

"What  we  think  under  the  conception  matter,  is  the  residue 
which  remains  over  after  bodies  have  been  divested  of  their  shape 
and  of  all  their  specific  quaUties ;  a  residue  which  precisely  on  that 
account  must  be  identical  in  all  bodies.  Now  these  shapes  and 
qualities  which  have  been  abstracted  by  us,  are  nothing  but  the 
peculiar,  specially  defined  way  in  which  the$e  bodies  act,  which  con- 
stitutes precisely  their  difference.  If,  therefore,  we  leave  these 
shapes  and  qualities  out  of  consideration,  there  remains  nothing 
but  mere  activity  in  general,  pure  action  as  such,  causality  fitself, 
objectively  thought — that  is  the  reflection  of  our  own  Understand- 
ing, the  externalized  image  of  its  sole  fimction;  and  Matter  is 
throughout  pure  Causality,  its  essence  is  Action  in  general." — 

SCHOPEWHAUEE,  "  Poujfold  ROOt." 


269500 


INTRODUCTION. 


In  1887  the  author  of  the  following 
pages  published  an  essay  entitled : 
"Matter  and  Energy:  Are  these  Two 
Real  Things  in  the  Physical  Universe  ?  " 

He  believes  it  was  the  first  published 
argument  in  support  of  the  theory  that 
the  conception  of  Energy  recently  postu- 
lated on  behalf  of  Physical  Science  really 
embraces  and  supersedes  the  conception 
of  Matter,  and  by  itself  adequately 
explains  the  real  element  in  all  physical 
phenomena. 

Subsequent  study  has  in  several  direc- 
tions advanced  the  writer's  conception  of 
the  theory  and  confirmed  his  conviction 
of  its  truth,  and  in  the  following  pages 


Vlll 


INTRODUCTION 


INTRODUCTION 


IX 


an  attempt  is  made  to  present  it  as 
viewed  from  a  metaphysical  standpoint. 
Want  of  leisure  debars  the  author  from 
stating  his  argument  in  a  less  imperfect 
form,  but  it  has  been  carefully  considered, 
and  he  believes  that  the  conclusions  sub- 
mitted have  both  validity  and  value. 

It  is  now  many  years  since  the  author 
firet  recognized  the  significance  of 
Activity  as  an  element  of  Experience, 
indeed,  a  key  to  its  interpretation  quite 
as  important  as  Sensation.  Such  recog- 
nition has  lately  been  more  marked  in 
the  writings  of  leading  metaphysicians. 
As  an  example,  reference  may  be  made 
to  Professor  Seth*s  recently  published 
volume,  "Mans  Place  in  the  Cosmos," 
containing  several  very  able  and  useful 
chapters.  Professor  Seth  seems  to  coun- 
tenance the  doctrine  that  as  an  Idea  must 
be  an  image  or  likeness  of  its  original,  we 
can  have  no  ideas  of  the  causative  agent 
or  of  its  acts,  which  latter  therefore  can 


^iK'- 


i 


I 


only  be  presented  in  the  system  of  our 
knowledge  as  Notions  which  the  mind  by 
immediate  intuition  recognizes  or  by  a 
process  of  inference  is  obliged  to  frame 
in  order  to  explain  the  constituents  of 

Experience. 

What  truly  experience  contains  in  the 
shape  of  immediate  recognition  of 
Activity  other  than  its  accompanying 
sensations  is  not  here  to  be  discussed ; 
but  it  is  surely  of  first  importance  to 
note  that  the  Human  Mind  has  at  all 
times  postulated  two  such  agents,— an 
Ego  and  a  Non-ego :  and  the  recognition 
of  this  Dualism  should  be  an  essential 
feature  in  the  study  of  Activity. 

A  few  notes  on  the  conception  of 
Matter,  regarded  historically,  are  ap- 
pended,—with  apologies  for  any  traces 
of  repetition,  which  it  is  difiicult  alto- 
gether to  avoid. 


c 


ERRATA. 


Page  ii,  line  3,  for  "  these  "  reaA  "  there." 

Page  vii,  line  3,  jor  "  these  "  readi,  *'  there." 

Page  33,  line  20,  jor  "  transmutatious  "  reacZ  *♦  trans- 
mutations." 

Page  54,  line  11,  jor  •'  brokens  "  reaH  "  broken." 

Page  58,  line  1,  jor  ''of"  read.  "  or." 

Page  60,  line  10,  jor  "attentions  "  read  "  attention." 

Page  88,  line  10,  jor  "  as  "  read.  "  of." 

Page  93,  line  4,  /or  "  reason  "  read  "reasoned." 


I 


I 


.^ 


THE  DOCTRINE  OF  ENEEGY 

The  problem  of  Metaphysics — the  nature 
of  Reality — still  presses  for  a  solution. 
Agnosticism  is  but  a  cautious  idealism 
— a  timid  phenomenalism.  That  philo- 
sophy, however  named,  which  proclaims 
that  the  experience  of  life  is  nothing 
more  than  a  vain  show,  a  pantomime  of 
sensations  distinguished  only  from  ideas 
by  their  greater  intensity  and  distinct- 
ness, is  not  only  a  confession  of  failure. 
It  is  a  denial  of  fact. 

To  know  the  nature  of  the  Absolute  as 
such,  to  present  the  Absolute  to  finite 
minds  as  it  must  be  presented,  if  that  be 
possible,  to  the  Absolute  itself,  must 
ever  remain  impossible  to  man.     But  it 

B 


I 


2 


THE   DOCTRINE   OF   ENERGY 


is  equally  true  that  to  attempt  such  a 
task  has  never  been  the  urgent  mission 
of  Philosophy.  The  distinction  between 
the  Ideal  and  the  Real,  between  the 
conceptual  and  the  perceptual,  is  quite 
certainly  and  incessantly  recognized. 
Agnosticism  can  neither  deny  the  fact 
successfully,  nor  solve  the  speculative 
difficulties  which  its  recognition  raises 
up.  The  Real  and  the  Ideal,  essentially 
distinct  yet  mockingly  similar,  for  ever 
blend  and  intermingle  in  the  composite 
experience  of  life.  Truly  to  discrimi- 
nate and  unravel  these,  validly  to 
separate  the  Ideal  element  which  im- 
pregnates that  Reality  which  we  are  for 
ever  compelled  to  postulate  and  recognize, 
still  remains  the  great  problem  of  Philo- 
sophy—humbler perhaps,  and  more 
practical,  but  not  less  profound  than  any 
vain  attempt  to  discover  to  finite  con- 
ception the  Absolute  as  it  is  in  itself. 
Therefore     it    is    that    the     efforts    of 


THE   DOCTRINE    OF   ENERGY 


^ 


negative  and  agnostic  criticism  to  dis- 
pense with  the  recognition  of  Reality  a» 
a  necessary  postulate  of  our  activity  are 
foredoomed  to  failure.  They  leave  us 
not  a  solitude  which  we  might  pretend 
to  be  peace,  but  a  seething  sea  of 
troubles  calling  loudly  for  a  new  attempt 
to  reveal  the  unity  which  must  underlie 
the  infinite  diversity  of  experience. 

Such,  indeed,  seems  to  us  the  present 
position  of  Metaphysics ;  and,  what  is- 
more  important,  it  appears  to  react  with 
increasing  force  upon  the  theories  and 
investigations  of  science. 

The  problem  of  Reality  is  thus  at 
present  not  without  a  special  and  in- 
creasing interest  for  the  students  of 
physical  science.  Until  lately  they  have 
been  taught  and  have  always  main- 
tained that  Matter  is  the  direct  object 
of  sense-perception.  No  doubt  it  is  long 
since  Philosophy  has  urged  that  our 
conceptions  of  the  external  world  are  a 


4  THE   DOCTRINE   OF   ENERGY 

mentally  constructed  system.  But  this 
doctrine  has  made  but  little  impression 
upon  the  students  of  Natural  Science. 
The  objective  origin  of  our  sensations 
and  the  apparently  objective  reality  also 
of  the  intelligible  qualities  and  operative 
laws  of  the  external  world  are  too 
strongly  impressed  upon  their  minds. 
Idealism  and  transcendentalism  have 
carried  no  conviction  to  them.  Still, 
the  difficulties  of  common  sense  have 
continued  to  grow.  Recent  develop- 
ments of  scientific  theorv  have  increased 
the  urgency  of  the  problem,  but  they 
seem  to  us  also  to  suggest  a  solution  the 
beneficial  results  of  which  affect  the 
whole  of  Metaphysics. 

We  refer  to  the  doctrine  of  Energy, 
which  occupies  now  as  great  a  place 
in  the  physical  sciences  as  the  doctrine 
of  Evolution  does  in  the  zoological 
sciences. 

Natural  philosophers    have   for  some 


THE    DOCTRINE    OF   ENERGY 


time  taught  that  there  are  two  real 
THINGS  in  the  physical  imiverse — Matter 
and  Energy.  It  seems  a  very  striking 
theorv.  Has  it  received  the  attention  it 
deserves  from  the  students  of  Meta- 
physics ?  We  are  convinced  that  it  has 
not;  and  the  most  obvious  reason  for 
this  neglect  that  will  occur  to  us  is 
probably  that  the  student  of  Metaphysics 
thinks  that,  as  a  purely  scientific 
doctrine  it  does  not  come  within  his 
sphere.  Science,  he  will  say,  deals  with 
the  phenomenal  world  internally  con- 
sidered ;  philosophy  with  the  relations  of 
the  phenomenal  world  to  Reality,  and 
with  the  nature  of  the  transcendental 
elements  in  our  knowledge. 

This  may  be  generally  true.  Never- 
theless, Philosophy  and  Science  have 
surely  concepts  in  common,  ^i  hey  both 
refer  to  the  same  thing  when  they 
speak  of  Space  ;  we  presume  also  when 
they   speak   of  Matter.     Indeed,  Philo- 


<) 


THE    DOOTKIXE    OF    ENERGY 


sophy  analyzes  the  conceptions  involved 
not  only  in  scientific  reasoning,  but  in 
the  most  common  and  ordinary  mental 
processes.  It  analyzes  them  with 
reference  to  the  particular  question  of 
the  relations  between  the  Ideal,  or  the 
Phenomenal,  and  the  Real — a  question, 
which  in  ordinary  circumstances,  though 
it  always  lies  latent,  does  not  arise  in 
urgent  form.  It  is  therefore  evident 
that  the  fundamental  conceptions  of 
Science  do  fall  within  the  purview  of 
Philosophy. 

The.  study  of  physics  can  be  carried 
on  practically  as  a  study  of  phenomena 
— of  Heat,  Colours,  Sounds,  Forces,  &c., 
all  of  which  are  kinds  of  phenomena — 
without  the  expression  of  any  dogmatic 
and  formulated  opinion  as  to  their  rela- 
tion with  Reality.  Physics  can  speak  of 
mass  and  weight  and  avoid  all  reference 
to  Matter ;  but  there  always  is,  in  scien- 
tific reasoning,  a  more  or   less   explicit 


THE   DOCTRINE   OF   ENERGY  7 

reference  to  Reality,  and  it  accords 
more  with  this  mental  tendency,  and 
facilitates,  therefore,  the  expression  of 
scientific  reasoning,  when  the  account 
of  a  physical  process  is  stated  with 
reference  to  a  supposed  reality  such  as 
Matter.  And  in  making  such  reference 
science  is  thinking  of  the  thing-in-itself. 
It  is  a  reference  beyond  phenomena. 
In  point  of  fact  the  ordinary  scientific 
theory  of  Matter  still  is,  or  until  lately 
has  been,  pretty  much  the  conception 
of  John  Locke,  which,  with  all  its  strange 
inconsistencies,  is  pre-eminently  a  theory 
of  the  real  physical  entity. 

Heat,  Light,  Sound,  Force,  are  names 
of  classes  of  phenomena,  and  the  great 
discovery  of  Physics  during  the  nine- 
teenth century  has  been  that  these  are  all 
transformable  into  each  other,  and  bear 
definite  numerical  relations  to  each  other 
in  proportion  to  which  such  transforma- 
tions take  place.     Science,  availing  itself 


8 


THE   DOCTRINE   OF   ENERGY 


of  this  discovery,  unifies  its  conceptioir 
of  Nature  and  gives  expression  to  the 
doctrine  of  the  inter-transmutability  of 
the  various  classes  of  physical  phenomena 
by  postulating  an  entity  called  Energy, 
and  regarding  the  various  classes  of 
phenomena  as  modes  or  transmutations 
which  this  entity  undergoes.  But 
Science  has  been  reluctant  to  recognize 
that  it  is  now  entitled  to  dispense  with 
the  postulation  of  Matter.  The  theory, 
as  announced  bv  the  leadinsr  men  of 
science,  has  therefore  been  to  the  effect 
that  there  exist  in  the  physical  universe 
two  real  things — Matter  and  Energy — in 
place  of  one  only,  as  conunonly  supposed 
for  so  long. 

We  have  elsewhere  attempted  to  show 
that  such  a  statement  of  scientific  theory 
is  erroneous  and  redundant ;  that  Science 
is  not  necessitated  to  postulate  two  such 
entities  ;  that  the  postulation  of  Energy 
supplies  all  her  requirements  ;  and  that 


THE   DOCTRINE   OF   ENERGY 


D 


the  postulation  of  that  conception 
obviates  the  very  serious  contradictions 
which  are  involved  in  any  assumption  of 
a  real  entity  of  the  nature  of  Matter  as 
ordinarily  understood — a  conception  of 
which  the  very  descriptiofi  involves 
difficulties  which  have  perplexed  think- 
ing men  for  more  than  two  centuries. 

Our  argument  on  this  point  involves 
consideration  of  the  place  occupied  by 
Energy  in  a  potential  form. 

Whilst  the  transformability  of  Heat, 
Light,  Sound,  and  other  such  phenomena 
in  definite  numerical  ratios  has  led  to 
their  being  all  regarded  as  actual  mani- 
festations of  transmutations  proceeding 
in  one  real  thing,  occasionally  there  is  a 
seeming  break  in  the  catena ;  no  pheno- 
menon, can  be  detected  into  which  the 
heat  or  light  or  other  immediately  pre- 
ceding manifestation  has  been  trans- 
formed ;  but  later  on  the  co-relative 
re-appears  and  by  an  argument  as  strong 


/ 


10 


THE    DOCTRINE    OF   ENERGY 


as    that   which   asserts   the    continuous 
identity  of  an  intelligence  before,  during, 
and   after  a    temporary   suspension    of 
consciousness,    the    student    of  Physics 
maintains    the    continued    existence   in 
posse,  if  not  in  esse,  of  the  Energy  which 
by  appropriate    action    he    can    again 
reveal  in  an  active  or  kinetic  manifesta- 
tion.    Hence   arises   the    conception   of 
potential  Energy.     The  Energy  to  which 
we  attribute  the  force  of  cohesion  which 
any  particular   body   can   on    occasion 
manifest,  we  believe  to  exist  potentially 
whilst  that  body  continues  unacted  upon. 
Our  belief  is  confirmed  by  our  experience 
of  the    certainty   with  which,    on    the 
recurrence  of  the  given  conditions,  the 
force  always  again  manifests  itself.     In 
like    manner   the   potential    Energy  to 
which  we  attribute  the  Force  of  Gravita- 
tion we  believe  to  exist  at  all  times,  even 
when  not  kinetically  active.     In  fact,  it 
only  manifests  itself  when  a  transmuta- 


THE   DOCTRINE   OF   ENERGY 


11 


tion  is  taking  place  into  some  other  form 
of  Energy.  Now  it  is  the  universal 
association  of  these  two  forms  of  poten- 
tial Energy  with  the  common  and  funda- 
mental data  of  our  sense-experience  that 
has  mainly  suggested  the  construction  in 
our  minds  of  the  conception  of  Matter, 
and  furnished  us  with  the  ideas  of  solidity, 
impenetrability,  and  weight  which  consti- 
tute its  ground-work. 

Our  view,  therefore,  is  that  the  con- 
ception of  materiality  and  of  real  Matter 
can,  in  the  way  just  indicated,  be  in  aU 
cases  analyzed  into,  and  derived  from  the 
conception  of  Energy  ;  and  that  Science, 
if  consistent,  cannot  postulate  the  reality 
of  Matter  as  well.  Potential  Energy 
adequately  supplies  the  conception  of  a 
real  substratum  of  which  phenomena  are 
the  manifestation. 

The  foregoing  argument  has  elsewhere 
leen  supported  by  us  at  more  length 
from  the  standpoint  of  physical  Science, 


12 


THE    DOCTRIXE    OF   ENERGY 


bat  the  whole  question  is  very  well 
worth  attention,  not  only  from  scientific 
students  but  from  metaphysicians.  The 
inquiry  will  derive  distinct  gain  if  it 
receive  auxiliary  attention  from  those 
who  have  studied  the  process  by  which 
we  form  our  mental  conceptions,  and 
whilst  the  students  of  Physics  deserve  the 
honour  of  discovery  and  formulation,  they 
should  not  and  cannot  safely  dispense 
with  such  assistance,  for  which  the 
present  confused  and  inconsistent  state 
of  the  fundamental  definitions  of  physical 
Science  most  urgently  calls.  There  is 
here  a  neglected  but  very  interesting 
field  for  the  metaphysician's  efforts. 

Recent  scientific  writings  contain 
enough  to  show  us  that  men  of  science 
are  already  beginning  to  recognize  not 
only  the  inconsistency  of  the  theory  of 
two  real  things,  but  the  dominating 
significance  of  the  conception  of  Energy, 
and  are  gradually  coming  to  claim  for 


THE   DOCTRINE   OF   ENERGY 


]3 


the  conception  of  Matter  little  more  than 
recognition  as  the  vehicle  of  energetic 
transmutation.  We  shall  again  advert 
to  this  view,  and  shall  direct  attention  to 
the  inevitable  admissions  to  which  it 
leads ;  we  now  propose  to  accept  the 
position  that  Science — ridding  itself  of 
redundant  theory — postulates  Energy  as 
the  real  thing-in-itself,  in  terms  of  which 
it  frames  its  statement  of  the  transmuta- 
tions which  constitute  physical  pheno- 
mena, and  to  examine  briefly  the  effects 
which  the  acceptance  of  this  new  postu- 
late is  likely  to  have  on  philosophic 
speculation. 

All  my  Presentment,  all  the  content  of 
my  sense-experience,  according  to  this 
theory,  I  attribute  lo  a  vast,  multifarious, 
continuous  series  of  transmutations  con- 
stantly proceeding  in  some  portion  of 
the  system  of  Energy  which  constitutes 
the  real  substratum  of  physical  pheno- 
mena,  and  I  learn   to   study,  measure, 


14 


THE    DOCTRINE    OF    ENERGY 


classify,  and  know  the  different  species 
of    these    transmutations,    to    associate 
particular  sensations  and  classes  of  sensa- 
tions with  particular  transmutations,  and 
to  infer  from  the  former  the  existence  in 
posse  or  in  esse  of  more  or  less  Energy  in 
some  particular  form  transmuting  itself 
according  to  some  one  or  other  definite 
physical  law.     I  infer  also  the  existence 
of  various  supplies  of  potential  Energy 
constantly  available,  and  of  other  intelli- 
gent agents  like  myself. 

I  associate  every  such  intelligent  agent 
with  a  particular  succession  or  group  of 
my  sense-experiences,  and  further  I  learn 
to  consider  that  the  world  as  his  present- 
ment, consists  for  him  in  a  similar  multi- 
farious  series  of  transmutations  continu- 
ously going  on  in  that   portion   of  the 
energetic  system  which  I  associate  with 
and  believe  to  be  revealed  to  me  by  the 
particular  sensations,  visual,  tactual,^  &c., 
which  I  group  together  as  representing 


THE   DOCTRINE    OF   ENERGY 


15 


such  person's  bodily  organism.  Thus, 
by  the  same  process  of  reasoning  by 
which  I  am  led  to  believe  that  my  own 
whole  immediate  presentment  consists  in 
the  multifarious  series  of  transmutations 
proceeding  in  that  portion  of  the  energetic 
system  which  constitutes  the  real  sub- 
stratum of  my  bodily  organism,  I  explain 
the  universality  of  the  experience  of  all 
intelligent  agents.  In  my  own  case,  by 
the  mysterious  union  of  intelligence  (or 
whatever  we  call  the  manifestation  of 
the  egoistic  thing-in-itself)  with  physical 
energy  which  constitutes  life,  I  am 
immediately  related  with  that  portion  of 
the  unextended,  unperceived,  physical, 
energetic  system  which  is  the  real 
substratum  of  my  organism,  and  am 
conscious  of  the  whole  multifarious  senes 
of  transmutations  occurring  at  that 
particular  point  in  it  which  is  repre- 
sented by  my  brain.  In  the  case  of 
others,  from  certain   of  the  transmuta- 


16 


THE   DOCTRINE    OF   ENERGY 


tions  occurring  in  my  Presentment, 
I  am  led  to  infer  the  existence  of  other 
similar  microcosmic  systems  in  the 
energetic  macrocosm  of  the  physical 
universe. 

This  is  all  very  well  as  a  theory,  but, 
if  it  be  true,  if  all  I  know  is  the  series  of 
transmutations  occurring  in  the  portion 
of  the  system  of  Energy  related  directly 
to  my  intelligence,  how  did  I  ever  learn 
to  infer  from  these   transmutations  the 
existence   of    that    Energy    underlying 
them,  and  still  more  of  the  whole  ener- 
getic system  extending  far  beyond  my 
organism  ?     How  do  I  deduce  from  trans- 
mutations proceeding  in  the  portion  of 
the  energetic  system  which  constitutes 
the  real  substratum  of  my  organism  the 
existence,  not  only  of  that  substratum 
itself,  but  of  other  portions  of  the  system 
similarly  related  to  other   intelligences, 
and  of  the  vast   energetic  system  as  a 
whole  ?     How  do  I  get  beyond  my  Pre- 


THE    DOCTRINE    OF   ENERGY 


17 


sentment  ?  How  pass  from  Ideality  to  Ex- 
istence ?  I  ansn^er  that  I  never  could  by 
any  chance  or  possibility  have  got  beyond 
it  or  got  any  suggestion  of  the  Reality  had 
I  been  merely  related  to  my  Presentment 
as  a  passive  and  percipient  subject. 

We  have  not  space  here  to  elaborate 
this  vital  and  fundamental  part  of  the 
argument.     Briefly  the  answer  is  that  I 
am  in  relation  with  the  energetic  system 
not  merely  or  primarily  as  an  intelligence 
percipient  of  the  transmutations  proceed- 
ing in  it  at  a  particular  point,  butalsoas 
a  Will  initiative  to  some  extent  of  such 
transmutations  and  capable  of  influencing 
and  directing  the  physical  process.     Life 
necessarily  involves  a  process  of  energetic 
transmutation  constantly  proceedino-  at 
that   point   in    the    system    of  Energy 
which  constitutes  the  real  substratum  of 
my  organism,  and  I  am  there  related  as 
Will  with  a  larger  system  which  embraces 
the  part  in  relation  to  which  alone  the 
EGO  is  developed  also  as  intelligence. 

c 


18 


THE    DOCTRINE    OF    ENERGY 


Fundcimen tally,  life  manifests  itself  in 
all  grades  of  the  zoologic  hierarchy  as  a 
union  of  Volition  (or  what  appears  in 
action  as  Volition)  with  some  particular 
point  in  the  universe  of  physical  Energy, 
the  union  constituting  what  we  call  a 
livino:  orf^anism. 

Despite  its  profound  importance  to  us 
personally  and  to  our  race,  we  should 
not  forget  that  scientifically,  objectively 
considered,  the  brain  in  man  and  the 
higher  animals  is  merely  a  special  organ 
highly  developed  by  use,  as  the  trunk  is 
in  the  elephant,  the  middle  phalanx  in 
the  horse,  or  wings  in  the  bird.  Intel- 
ligence is  hardly  to  any  extent  a  neces- 
sity of  the  vital  union  of  the  will  with  the 
energetic  system.  It  is  not  at  all  deve- 
loped in  the  vegetable  kingdom,  hardly 
at  all  in  some  branches  of  the  animal, 
and  there  may  conceivably  be  an  infinite 
number  of  other  "  kingdoms  **  in  which  it 
may  either  be  undeveloped,  or  very  differ- 
ently developed,  or  superseded  by  some 


THE    DOCTRINE    OF   ENERGY 


Id 


other  manifestation  by  us  unimaginable. 
Its  development,  indeed,  seems  to  be  con- 
current with  the  development  of  a  locomo- 
tive faculty, — a  striking  confirmation  of 
the  theory  that  it  is  in  our  activity  that  we 
derive  the  suggestions  which  call  forth 
the  exercise  of  the  Understanding  and 
transform  sensation  into  perception. 

It  is  only  with  a  comparative  fraction 
of  the  organism,  and  indeed  of  that  small 
part  which  is  the  substratum  of  what  I 
call  my  brain,  that  I  am  related  as  a  pas- 
sively percipient  and  actively  thinking 
intelligence.  I  am  directly  or  indirectly 
related  as  Will,  as  an  originative  cause  of 
activity,  with  a  larger  portion  of  my 
organism,  many  parts  of  which  are  quite 
distinct  from  the  cognitive  portion. 
Now  it  is  from  my  relation  as  Will  with 
energy  other  than  and  beyond  the  portion 
of  the  energetic  system  the  transmuta- 
tions of  which  constitute  my  Presentment 
that  there  is  derived  the  primordial  dis- 


f 


20 


THE   DOCTRINE    OF   ENERGY 


closure  to  my  Intelligence  of  the  real 
energetic  system,  as  a  substratum  or  real 
thing— beyond,  underlying  and  by  its 
transmutations  constitutive  of  my  Pre- 
sentment. Many  of  the  transmutations 
which  occur  in  my  Presentment  I  recog- 
nize as  attributable  to  my  own  volitional 
activity  operating  upon  my  energetic 
organism,  and  in  my  activity  there  is  thm^ 
suggested  to  me  a  source  of  phenomena  lyivg 
beyond  these  phenomena  themselves.  A 
transmutation  directly  initiated  in  my 
cerebral  system  is  a  pure  idea.  The  key 
which  sufffrests  to  me  the  real  world  is 

CO 

the  occurrence  of  transmutations  ascrib- 
able  to  my  activity  from  beyond  the 
sphere  which  constitutes  my  Presentment. 
It  is  in  this  way,  fundamentally  and 
originally,  that  I  discover  the  real 
energetic  substratum  to  the  phenomenal 
world  of  my  Presentment,  and  learn, 
from  the  variations  which  occur  in  the 
transmutations  constitutive  of  that  pre- 
sentment, to  infer  the   real  agency  and 


THE    DOCTRINE    OF   ENERGY 


21 


operation  of  the  underlying  energy,  and 
gradually  to  construct  my  whole  sys- 
tematic conception  of  the  real  world  in 
which  I  live  and  move  and  have  my 
being. 

This  theory  of  my  activity  and  of  the 
consequences  of  my  relation  as  Will  to 
the  whole  energetic  system  represented 
by  my  organism,  including  the  portion 
thereof  related  to  my  intelligence,  seems 
to  us  well  worthy  the  attention  of 
philosophical  thinkers  as  a  key  to  the 
inevitable  reference  of  thoughts  to  things. 

We  cannot  illustrate  this  argument 
here  at  great  length. 

I  distinguish  in  my  active  experience 
a  clear  difference  between  wishing  and 
willing,  and  further  between  willing  and 
effective  action.  My  Power — the  Energy 
related  to  my  Will — the  exertion  of 
which  is  necessary  to  an  overt  result — 
is  a  limited  and  quantifiable  thing,  and 
that  such  a  hidden  energetic  medium  or 
substratum  underlies   all  phenomena  is 


22 


THE    DOCTIilNE    OE    ENERGY 


evident  from  the  fact  that  I  do  not  will 
directly  the  appearance  of  any  given 
phenomenon.  I  may  tvish  that.  But 
when  the  Volition  is  reached  and  the 
wish  transformed  into  overt  exertion  I 
find  myself  involved  in  the  multifarious 
processes  of  an  energetic  system  which  I 
may  so  far  influence,  but  which  is  never- 
theless in  many  ways  constantly  going 
on  irrespective  of  my  Volition.  I  may^ 
wish  to  avoid  pain  and  may  ivill  certain 
exertions  with  that  view,  but  the  con- 
sequences may  be  the  reverse  of  what  I 
wished.  At  any  rate,  I  do  not  primarily 
will  an  exertion  in  direct  reference  to 
the  resulting  sensation.  Originally  my 
volitional  activity  responds  to  the 
feeling  accompanying  the  antecedent 
presentation.  As  consciousness  develops 
there  is  a  dual  development  of  my 
volitional  activity.  In  the  case  of  cer- 
tain actions,  as  it  becomes  habitual,  the 
process    abbreviates   into   reflex  action. 


THE   DOCTRINE    OF    ENERGY 


23 


In  the  case  of  others  my  ideative  activity 
develops  the  purposive  action  of  de- 
liberate Volition. 

In  all  cases  between  Volition  and  overt 
result  there  seems  to  be  erected  and  con- 
stantly maintained  around  me  a  vast 
energetic  system  only  a  small  part  of 
which  (the  Energy  of  my  organism)  can 
be  influenced  directly  by  my  will,  whilst 
even  in  immediate  relation  with  that 
part  other  transmutations  are  constantly 
proceeding,  and  the  transmutations  in 
that  particular  section  of  my  organism 
which  is  directly  connected  with  my 
intelligence  are  affected  by  the  trans- 
mitted impulses  of  a  whole  system  of 
related  processes  and  operations.  In- 
deed, what  fundamentally  distinguishes 
Volition  from  Desire  is  its  relation  to  the 
energetic  system. 

The  doctrine  of  Energy  therefore  puts 
in  a  new  and  clearer  light  the  whole 
theory  of  Causality. 

It  is  common  for  philosophers  to  talk 


24 


THE    DOCTRINE    OF   ENERGY 


of  invariable  sequence  as  the  criterion  of 
Causality.     But,  in   fact,  this    is    quite 
absurd.     No  one  ever  regards  a  pheno- 
menon as  the  cause  of  another  pheno- 
menon.     We    ascribe  Causality   to  the 
energetic  transmutation  which  in  some 
form  or  other  we  inevitably  believe  to 
accompany   the     appearance    of    every 
phenomenon.      We    never    postulate    a 
causal  relation  between  day  and  night — 
the    most    notable    case    of    invariable 
sequence.     When  we  say  the  fire  warms 
the  room,  or  the  horse  draws  the  cart, 
or  the   sun   ripens   the   com,  it  is  the 
Energy  which   we    rightly  or  wrongly 
associate  with  the  visual   sensation   re- 
ferred  to    in    the    words    "  fire "    and 
"horse,"  and  *' sun ''  of  which  we  are 
thinking,    and   by   no    means    of    these 
visual   sensations  themselves.      As    has 
been   well   said,    we  never  suppose  the 
leading  carriage  of  the  train  draws  those 
behind  it,    although    their    relation    of 


THE   DOCTRINE    OF    ENERGY 


25 


f 


sequence  is  quite  as  close  to  it  as  to  the 
engine. 

True,  it  is  and  must  be  by  and 
through  phenomena  only  that  I  infer  the 
operation  and  measure  the  transmuta- 
tions of  Energy,  but  the  operations  so 
measured  are  operations  of  the  real 
thing-in-itself  postulated  by  Science  and 
suggested  primarily  to  me  in  my  ex- 
perience of  my  own  activity  in  which  I 
recognize  my  power  of  doing  work — a 
quantifiable  and  measurable  thing,  and 
which  Science  has  shown  to  be  homo- 
geneous with  the  physical  Energy  in 
respect  of  which  Science  can  state  the 
relations  and  conditions  of  all  physical 
phenomena.  My  most  incessant  mental 
act  is  that  by  which,  on  the  analogy  of 
my  oicn  active  experience^  I  refer  all 
phenomena  to  the  underlying  energetic 
system.  This  reference  it  is  which  trans- 
forms sensation  into  perception ;  and 
the  constant  affirmation  of  this  reference 


2G 


THE   DOCTRINE    OF   ENEUGV 


is  the  great  function  of  the  synthetic 
mental  activity  of  the  understanding; 
and  is  at  once  the  origin  and  explana- 
tion of  that  imperative  mental  tendency 
which  metaphysicians  call  the  law  of 
causality. 

How,  then,  does  this  doctrine  affect  the 
theory  of  the  nature  of  Space  ? 

If  it  be   true  that   the  world  as  my 
presentment  consists  in  the  transmuta- 
tions occurring  in  that  particular  part  of 
the   energetic  system  which  constitutes 
the   real   substratum   of  what    I    know 
phenomenally  as  my  brain,  then  pheno- 
mena as  a  whole,  my  Presentment,  must 
consist  of  a  process  of  transmutation  or 
motion  or  change,  a  process  of  Becoming 
rather  than  of  Being,  and  our  complex 
intellectual    and    visual    conception    of 
Space  is  the  content,  the   condition,   in 
which  the  process  proceeds.     The  laws 
of  Space,  therefore,  are  laws,  so  to  speak, 
of  motion,  not  of  position.      The  most 


THE    DOCTRINE    OF   ENERGY 


j:i 


absolutely  still  and  motionless  visual 
presentation  is  really  a  series  of  con- 
stantly proceeding  transmutations  of 
Energy,  and  Space  is  constituted  by  the 
laws  of  transmutation  which  are  thus  at 
once  the  necessary  and  inevitable  con- 
ditions of  my  perception  and  at  the 
same  time  the  universal  'and  indepen- 
dently real  conditions  of  all  sense-per- 
ception. Space,  therefore,  does  not 
contain  the  non-egoistic  real  thing  any 
more  than  the  egoistic  real  thing.  It  is 
the  universal  condition  of  the  transmu- 
tations of  this  real  thing,  which  trans- 
mutations constitute  phenomena  ;  and  it 
therefore  '^contains''  all  these  pheno- 
mena, including  my  body  as  phenomenon 
and  only  as  phenomenon. 

This  view  of  the  nature  of  Space,  by 
relating  its  forms  and  laws  with  the  non- 
egoistic  and  a-logical  thing-in-itself  in 
virtue  of  the  transmutations  of  which 
our  sense-experience  occurs,  relieves  an 


28 


THE    DOCTRINE    OF   ENERGY 


obvious  diflSculty  which  must  always 
have  been  felt  in  accepting  without 
qualification  the  purely  Kantian  view  of 
it  as  a  category  imposed  by  the  Intelli- 
gence  upon  the  otherwise  unknowable 
world  of  sense. 

The  most  ardent  assertors  of  the 
ideality  of  Space  have  hitherto  apparently 
had  difficulty  in  avoiding  the  tendency 
to  conceive  it  as  the  persistent  all- 
embracing  objective  content  of  the  thino*- 

o 

in-itself,  not  merely  of  the  phenomenon, 
although  the  latter  only  might  enter 
into  knowledge.  The  doctrine,  however, 
which  presents  Space  as  a  function  of  the 
cerebral  Energy  not  only  establishes  its 
ideality  and  at  the  same  time  explains 
the  relation  which  its  form  nevertheless 
bears  to  the  objective  material  laws  of 
the  sensible  presentation,  but  it  liberates 
the  mind  from  the  oppressive  necessity 
to  regard  Space  as  still  somehow  objec- 
tively extending  and  containing  the  real 


THE   DOCTRINE    OF   ENERGY 


29 


world.  It  also  relieves  an  obvious 
difficulty  which  confronts  the  Philosophy 
of  Schopenhauer  in  locating  those  trans- 
cendental forms  of  the  phenomenon 
which  are  imposed  d  priori  upon  the 
presentation  and  yet  are  not  to  be  found 
in  the  pure  Volition. 

Of  course,  it  must  never  be  forgotten 
that  my  whole  sentient  experience  con- 
sists primarily  of  the  series  of  energetic 
transmutations  occurring  at  that  part  of 
the  energetic  system  which  is  in  immedi- 
ate vital  relation  with  my  intelligence, 
that  is  to  say,  at  that  centre  of  energetic 
transmutation  which  constitutes  the  real 
substratum  of  my  brain.  It  is  my  power 
of  active  exertion,  of  moving,  speaking, 
&c.,  which  gives  a  suggestion  of  the  real 
energetic  world.  The  real  Energy  of  the 
world  beyond  my  body  never  enters  my 
Consciousness.  Even  transmutations 
arising  beyond  my  body  only  enter  the 
presentation  by  influencing  the  cerebral 


oO 


THE  DOCTRINE  OF  ENERGY 


THE  DOCTRINE  OF  ENERGY 


31 


process.     The  luminous  undulation  and 
the  sound-wave  must  both  produce  trans- 
mutation of  the  cerebral  Energy  in  order 
to  reach  Consciousness.     Yet  the  various 
characters   of  the  transmitted   impulses 
are    distinguishable    in     the     resultant 
cerebral    transmutations.     Thus   I   only 
feel      sensations — hardness,     rouo-hness 
pain,   colour,   sound,    &c.     It    is    by   a 
process   of   mental    construction    solely 
that  I  associate  these  with  the  conception 
of  more  or  less  Energy,  and  thus  frame 
my  conceptions   of  real   bodies   in   the 
world  around  me  ;— those  which  I  more 
directly  associate  with  the  Energy  subject 
to  my  Volition  being  conceived  as  repre- 
senting my  body.     For  reasons   of  con- 
venience I  refer  these  conceptions  chiefly 
to  the  vast  co-ordinated  visual  presenta- 
tion, and  thus  build  up  my  conception  of 
the   extended  world  of  material  things. 
Science  is  possible  because  all  transmuta- 
tions  of  Energy  take  place  according  to 


definite  numerical  laws  and  ratios.     The 
whole  work  of  Science  is  to  explain  every 
phenomenon    in    terms    of    its   definite 
transmutation  of  Energy.     These  definite 
numerical  laws  and  processes  are  charac- 
teristic of  all  Energy  transmutation,  and 
thus  regulate   the  experience   of  every 
intelligent  being.     It  is  in  virtue  of  these 
that  our  separate  systems  of  knowledge 
correspond,  and  that  wc  are   thus  pre- 
sented each  with  corresponding  aspects 
of   one    outer    world.     The    particular 
mathematical  laws   of  energetic   trans- 
mutation  which  regulate    the   cerebral 
changes  that  accompany  sense-presenta- 
tion are  for  me  the  necessary  a  priori 
laws  of  all  perception;  they  constitute 
the   Space  which   contains  my  sensible 
world.     It  is  because  these  laws  operate 
in  common  in  all  brains  that  community 
of  intercourse  is  possible  amongst  man- 
kind.    It  is  because  of  the  further  fact 
that   the   whole  transmutations    of  tlie 


.1^; 


''^-: 


S-2 


THE    DOCTRINE    OF   ENERGY 


1 


:  ' 


universe    of    Energy  which    constitute 
physical   phenomena   are  a  numerically 
inter-related  and  regulated  system  that 
Science     and    rational    knowledo-e    are 
possible  to  the  intellect   of  man.     Our 
knowledge  is  what   we   are   obliged   to 
think  and  assert  regarding  experience ; 
but  the   necessity  of  the  universality  of 
experience  is  not  explained  merely  by 
the  common  nature  and  general  laws  of 
Intelligence,   but   depends   also   on   the 
generality  of  the  laws  under  which  the 
transmutations  of  Energy  proceed. 

We  are  now,  therefore,  by  the  aid  of 
the  doctrine  of  Energy  better  able  than 
before  to  distinguish  accurately  between 
the  Ideal  and  the  Real  as  contrasted 
elements  in  our  experience. 

My  Presentment  as  a  whole  consists  in 
the  transmutations  and  processes — in  the 
sensations,  feelings,  perceptions,  images, 
ideas — in  short,  in  all  that  is  going  on  at 
the  point  where — (I  necessarily  express 


THE    DOCTRINE    OF   ENERGY 


myself  in  terms  of  spacial  relations, 
though  in  this  connection  these  are 
figurative)  the  union  constituted  by 
vitality  is  established  between  the  Ego 
developed  as  Intelligence,  and  that  part 
of  the  constantly-transmuting  system  of 
physical  Energy,  the  transmutations  of 
which  constitute  my  cerebral  activity. 

My  whole  Presentment  is,  therefore,  in 
one  sense  subjective,  or  as  some  would 
say,  ideal.  For  me,  my  Presentment  is- 
the  impression  produced  on— the  condi- 
tion established  in  my  Intelligence  in 
virtue  of  what  is  going  on  at  what  we 
may  figuratively  call  the  point  of 
contact. 

What  we  mean,  therefore,  by  the 
subjectivity  or  ideality  of  the  Present- 
ment is  that  the  aspect  of  the  energetic 
transmutations  as  affecting  my  intelli- 
gence,  and  thus  constituting  my  Present- 
ment, is  quite  different  from  their  obverse 
aspect    as   transmutations   in   the    non- 

1) 


mp 


34 


THE  DOCTRINE  OF  ENERGY 


THE  DOCTRINE  OF  ENERGY 


35 


egoistic  system,  and  is  only  found  where 
energetic  transmutations  are  organically 
related  to  Consciousness.  As  mv  Present- 
ment,  they  are  all  subjective  or  ideal, 
and  it  is  in  this  reference  that  Berkeley 
and  Hume,  for  instance,  speak  of  ideas  of 
sense,  such  as  the  colour  blue,  the  heat 
of  the  fire,  the  pain  of  a  blow.  These, 
constituting  the  bulk  of  my  Presentment, 
they  distinguish  from  what  Berkeley 
calls  ideas  of  the  imagination — those 
stimulated  or  originated,  or,  as  he  said, 
^'  excited  "  by  the  intelligence  itself ;  and 
^vhilst  he  contended  that  both  classes  are 
ideal  or  subjective,  in  respect  that  they 
are  constituents  of  my  mental  Present- 
ment, the  latter  have  an  additional  title 
to  subjectivity  in  respect  of  origin,  and 
constitute  what  are  called  "  ideas  "  when 
the  w^ord  is  used  in  contradistinction  to 
sensations — such  ideas  proper  occurring 
in  response  to  a  purely  subjective 
impulse,  operating  within  the  portion  of 


% 


the  energetic   system  which  constitutes 

my  cerebral  organism. 

On  the  other  hand,  there  is  a  sense  in 

which  my  Presentment,  even  including 

ideas  proper,   is,   if  not  real,  at  least, 

actual  and  objective. 

So   far  as  we   know,   the  Ego  never 

develops  as   Intelligence  except  in  con- 
junction with  an  organism,  that   is,  in 

vital  relation  with  physical  Energy.  My 
Presentment  is  constituted  by  the  occur- 
rence and  depends  upon  the  continuance 
of  the  transmutations  or  operations 
proceeding  at  the  related  point  in  the 
energetic  system.  Even  ideas  proper, 
though  subjective  not  only  in  regard  to 
aspect,  but  in  regard  to  their  egoistic 
origination,  are  objective  in  respect  that 
they  also  consist  in  an  induced  energetic 
transmutation. 

Herein  lies  the  germ  of  truth  to  be 
discovered  even  in  the  unintelligent 
dogmatism  of  the  so-called  philosophers 


36 


THE  DOCTRINE  OF  ENERGY 


THE  DOCTRINE  OF  ENERGY 


37 


of  common  sense.  They  asserted  the- 
absolute  Reality  of  my  Presentment,  as 
such — not  merely  its  actuality.  But  it 
is  comparatively  seldom,  either  in  Science- 
or  Philosophy,  that  a  thinker  appears 
sufficiently  purblind  to  go  so  far  as  that. 
Most  take  refuge  in  a  distinction  between 
primary  and  secondary  qualities  of 
bodies,  classing  my  sensations  as  non- 
resembling  secondary  qualities,  which 
they  admit  cannot  be  conceived  to  exist 
without  the  mind  in  the  form  in  whicli 
they  make  up  my  Presentment,  but 
reserving  five  or  six  primary  qualities — 
solidity,  extension,  figure,  motion,  rest — 
which  they  conceive  to  exist  indepen-^ 
dently,  just  as  they  enter  into  my 
Presentment.  In  point  of  fact,  however, 
these  so-called  primary  qualities  are  not 
the  names  of  any  sensible  intuitions,  but 
are  abstractions  or  generalizations  of  the 
most  general  and  necessary  elements  in 
my  visual  Presentment,  in  reference  to- 


which  chiefly  I  mentally  construct   my 
world.     The  transmutations  of  Energy 
are     not    a    never-repeated    accidental 
kaleidoscope.     They  proceed   according 
to    constant,  definite,  measurable  laws, 
and   though   subordinate  variations  are 
infinite  and  make  up  the  details  of  my 
Presentment,  the  general  laws  and  con- 
ditions according  to  which  Energy  (and 
particularly  the  Energy  of  my  cerebral 
organism)   transmutes  are  definite,  and 
constitute  the  general  features  or  qualities 
of  my   Presentment,  and  these   are  the 
so-called  primary  qualities  of  bodies  re- 
garded in  the  light  of  the  doctrine  of 
Energy. 

The  primary  quality  of  extension,  in 
particular,  is  a  conception  resulting  from 
the  association  of  my  visual  Presentment 
with  my  power  of  active  exertion,  and 
the  delusive  tendency  to  regard  this 
quality  as  in  some  sense  primarily  and 
fundamentally  real  is  due  to  the  uncon- 


i 


38 


THE  DOCTRINE  OF  ENERGY 


THE  DOCTRINE  OF  ENERGY 


3^) 


scious  recognition  of  the  fact  that  it  is  in 
virtue  of  my  power,  or  association  as  an 
agent  with  the  energetic  system,  that  I 
derive  a  suggestion  of  the  real  world 
beyond  the  phenomena  which  constitute 
my  experience. 

I  cannot  exist  without  some  develop- 
ment of  activity.  Hence  are  derived 
the  conceptions  of  free  space  and  of 
resistance  between  bodies.  My  primary 
sensations  are  the  sensations  of  touch, 
and  the  primary  impulse  of  thought 
when  it  comes  into  operation  is  to  relate 
these  with  my  active  exertions.  When 
sight  is  first  restored  to  the  blind  the 
first  impulse  is  to  regard  the  new  sensa- 
tion as  a  form  of  touch.  Its  intel- 
lectual suggestiveness  is  a  development. 
The  system  or  stream  of  transmutations 
in  which  my  volitional  activity  princi- 
pally takes  part  is  that  represented  by 
the  operation  of  the  forces  of  Gravitation 
and    Cohesion ;    the    system   which  in- 


fluences my  visual  sensations  is  a  quite 
different  series,  and  as  it  happens,  the 
changes  in  this  latter  series  by  their 
greater  rapidity  enable  me  to  anticipate 
the  other  series,  and  for  this  and  other 
reasons,  I  employ  these  sensations  to 
signalize  and  symbolize  the  transmuta- 
tions proceeding  in  the  series  with  which 
I  am  more  fundamentally  related  as  an 
active  and  ^'  willino^ "  accent.  All  trans 
mutations,  if  they  result  in  sensations, 
must  do  so  by  producing  changes  in  the 
Energy  of  my  organism,  and  must  there- 
fore be  conditioned  by  the  general  laws 
which  regulate  the  changes  which  occur 
there,  or,  in  other  words,  must  be  con- 
tained within  a  self- consistent  spacial 
condition,  but  the  differences  in  the 
characters  of  visual  space,  as  it  is  called, 
and  the  spacial  content  of  my  activity, 
reflect  the  differences  in  the  series  of 
energetic  transmutations  with  which 
they  are  respectively  connected. 


THE   DOCTRINE   OF   E.VERGY 


We  see  more  clearly,  therefore,  with 
the  aid  of  the  doctrine  of  Energy,  the 
import  of  the  theory  of  transcendental 
aesthetic  enunciated  by  Kant,  who  first 
pointed  out  that  there  are  elements,  and 
those  the  most  necessary  and  universal, 
in  the  sense-presentation  which  bear  the 
character  of  ideality  as  fully  as  the  most 
subjective  efforts  of  our  ideative  activity. 
More  particularly  do  we  illustrate  the 
ideality  of  Space  as  a  cognition  precedent 
to   experience.      It  is   because   general 
laws  constantly  operative  regulate   the 
transmutations     which     constitute     the 
individual's  Presentment  that  it  is  pos- 
sible  for  him  to  abstract  and  generalize 
the  data  of  sense;    and    it    is    because 
the   subjective   process  of  Ideation,   by 
which     we     mean     our    representative 
mental    activity    in    its    widest    sense, 
consists  also  in  transmutations  under  the 
same  general  laws  of  the  same  portion 
of  the   energetic   organism,   that    it    is 


THE    DOCTRINE    OF    ENERGY 


41 


possible  to  frame  general  or  abstract 
ideas.  These  general  laws  of  cerebral 
transmutation  are  the  d  priori  con- 
ditions of  the  necessary  determination  in 
time  of  all  existences  in  the  world  of 
phenomena. 

The  form,  therefore,  of  the  phenomenon, 
in  the  language  of  Kant,  is  constituted 
by  the  laws  of  the  transmutations  of  the 
Energy  immediately  related  to  my  con* 
sciousness  (my  cerebral  Energy) ;  the 
matter  of  the  phenomenon  is  constituted 
by  the  varieties  produced  in  these  in 
accordance  with  the  constant  variation 
in  the  transmitted  transmutations  from 
the  Energy  beyond — just  as  the  musician 
may  produce  a  constant  variety  of 
harmonies  upon  his  instrument,  but  all 
must  be  conditioned  by  the  relations 
iixed  and  established  between  the  notes 
of  which  the  instrument  is  composed. 
Transmutations  of  the  cerebral  Energy 
may  be  stimulated  not  only  from  without, 


[if 


42 


THE  DOCTUIXE  OF  EXEUGV 


THE  DOCTRINE  OF  ENERGY 


43 


i\ 


i 


but  by  subjective  impulse  from  within  ; 
but  in   either  case   the   laws    of  these 
transmutations  are  the  necessary  form  of 
experience,  and  it  is  the  possibility  of 
transmutation    upon    an    internal    and 
subjective  impulse  which  makes  possible 
the  formation  of  synthetical  judgments 
a  priori.     It  is  as  if  the  organ  were  not 
only  responsive  to  impressions  upon  its 
key-board  from  without,  but  were  also 
automotive   and    could    originate    har- 
monies in   its   own    notes;    and   as   if, 
moreover,   it  were  endowed   with  con- 
sciousness so  as  to  receive  an  intuition 
of  both   classes   of  music.     The   former 
would  correspond  to  sensations,  the  latter 
to  ideas  ;  and  we  might  imagine  such  an 
instrument  by  presenting  to  itself  its  own 
system  of  notes,  contriving  thus  to  frame 
d  priori   a  synthetical  system   of  these 
general  musical  laws  which  would  con- 
stitute the  necessary  and  imiversal  form 
of  its   whole   musical   experience.      To 


complete  the  perhaps  fantastic   analogy 
we  must  imagine  the  world  to  be  one 
co-ordinated    musical   system,  and    our 
instrument    to    be    endowed  with    the 
power  of  playing  upon  the  other  key- 
boards ;  of  thence  deriving  the  suggestion 
of  the  distinction  between  the  internal 
and  external  impulses  which  respectively 
awakened  harmonies  within  itself;  and 
lastly,  of  thus  at  length  conceiving  in  the 
spirit  of  science   that  the  necessary  and 
universal  laws  which  it    recognized    as 
the   most  subjective    and    fundamental 
conditions  of  its  own  manifestation  were 
at  the  same   time    the    necessary   and 
universal  laws  regulating  the  manifes- 
tations of  the  entire  musical  universe. 

How  natural  it  would  be  for  such 
an  intelligent  musical  instrument,  if 
unhappily  endowed  with  common  sense, 
to  believe  and  assert  that  the  real 
substance  of  the  universe  consisted  solely 
of  sounds.     Yet  how  evident  would  it  be 


M( 


44 


THE   DOCTRINE    OF   ENERGY 


to    US    from    our    standpoint    of  more 
absolute     knowledge     that    the    whole 
orchestra  of  sounds,  although  actual  and 
quite   distinct   from   consciousness,   was 
still  merely  phenomenal,  and  yet  withal, 
in  its  every  expression  revealed  the  laws 
and  structure  of  reality-of  the  system 
of  things  in  themselves~a  system,  the 
reahty  of  which  was  utterly  dissimilar 
to  those  appearances,  though  all  its  laws 
and    structure   could    be    studied    and 
derived  from  them. 

Berkeley,   therefore,    erred    seriously 
when  he  described  the  idea  as  a  fainter 
sensation.     Faint    subjective    reproduc- 
tions of  our  sensations,  as  of  blue,  green, 
or  the  like,  constitute  a  very  insignificant 
element  in  our  mental  furniture.     We 
seldom  pursue    so  far    into  detail  the 
ideative  effort.     Severely  and  effectively 
as  Berkeley  criticized  Locke's  account  of 
abstract    ideas,    the   fact  remains   that 
abstraction  or  generalization  is  the  main 


THE    DOCTRINE    OF   ENERGY 


45 


and  primary  feature  of  our  whole   con- 
ceptual  system ;    and   the    abstractable 
elements    of    the   sensible    presentation 
being  the  necessary  constituents  of  all 
ideative    representation     are     properly 
denominated  ideal.     The  one  element  of 
particularity  which  every  idea  lacks   is 
the  reference   to   the   particular  trans- 
mitted    transmutation     to    which     the 
sensible    phenomenon    owes    its   origin. 
We  derive  such  reference  to  the  external 
solely  from  the  experiences  furnished  by 
our   activity,  without   which  we    could 
derive    no    suggestion  of  the  non-ego, 
and  in  particular  no  suggestion  of  the 
d5niamic   element  which   fundamentally 
distinguishes     things     from     thoughts. 
The  empirical  content  of  experience — 
the  so-called  secondary  qualities  of  bodies 
— are  called  in  their  subjective  aspect 
ideal  because  the  mental   impression  is 
obviously  very  different  from  the  trans- 
mutation   objectively    regarded.       The 


-t 


46 


THE   DOCTRINE    OF   ENERGY 


primary  qualities,    being   the  necessary 
and  general  laws  according  to  which  the 
transmutations  of  cerebral  Energy  pro- 
ceed, are  in  a  higher  sense  ideal,  being 
the   necessary  conditions    under   which 
both    sense-presentation    and     ideative 
representation  proceed.     Whilst,   there- 
fore,  as   Kant  maintained,  they  are  the 
d  priori    element    in     perception— the 
condition  precedent  to  sense-presentation, 
at  the  same  time  as  they  constitute  thj 
laws  which   regulate   all  Energy  trans- 
mutation   within   our  world,    including 
not    only    the    transmutations    of    our 
cerebral  Energy,  but  the  Energy  trans- 
mutations which  are  resultant  upon  our 
activity  and  the  transmutations  of  the 
^vhole  energetic  world  in  which  we  are 
involved,  there  is  an  aspect  of  truth  also 
in  the  Lockean  view  which  regards  them 
as  the  primary  or  fundamental  qualities 
of  a  real  material  world  of  sense. 

We  hold,  therefore,  to  the   Platonic 


THE   DOCTRINE    OF   ENERGY 


47 


doctrine  that  whilst,  on  the  one  hand,  the 
sensible  is  only  an  object  of  thought  in 
so  far  as  it  partakes  of  the  intelligible, 
on  the  other  hand  the  idea  is  not  only  a 
type  for  the  individual  mind,  but  is 
partaker  also  of  the  laws  which  pene- 
trate the  system  of  things.  Idealism  as 
ii  Philosophy,  in  denying  the  validity 
of  any  reference  of  the  content  of  the 
Presentment  to  a  further  existence  out- 
side the  subjective  experience,  has 
authorized  that  wider  use  of  the  term 
idea  which  applies  it  to  the  whole 
actuality  of  experience  in  its  subjective 
aspect.  With  the  advance  of  Philosophy 
we  must  revert  to  that  more  ancient  use 
of  the  term  idea  which  confines  its 
extension  into  the  realm  of  the  per- 
ceptual to  those  elements  of  the  sensible 
presentation  which  can  be  reproduced 
by  the  activity  of  the  subject,  and 
which  in  asserting,  for  instance,  the 
ideality  of  Space,  reminds  us  at  the  same 


48 


THE  DOCTRINE  OF  ENERGY 


THE  DOCTRINE  OF  ENERGY 


49 


'I 


time  that  Ideality  implies  not  merely 
subjectivity,  but  the  expression  or  repre- 
sentation also  of  some  aspect  of  those  laws 
which  regulate  the  system  of  Reality. 

But  is  not  common  sense  right  after 
all?     Do   I   really  mean    to    say   that 
tables,   chairs,   houses,    mountains — the 
whole  world  of  my  Presentment,  are  to 
be  regarded  as  shrivelled  up  and  located 
in  my  brain,  or  in  the  energetic  correla- 
tive  of  my  brain?     Is  the  whole  Uni- 
verse, as  known  to  me  or  conceived  by 
me,  contained  within  a  minute  portion  of 
itself — the  brain  ?     Now  Science  does  say 
something  very  like  this,  and  the  logical 
difficulties    of    the    position    are     very 
pressing,  but  they  cannot  be  got  over  by 
attempting  to  revert  to  common  sense^ 
because  to  assert  that  all  my  conceived 
Universe  is  immediately  perceived  by  me 
as   it   exists   would   seem  to   involve   a 
diffusion  of  my  intelligence  throughout 
Space  which  is  still  more  inconceivable 


and  self-contradictory:  besides  which, 
the  assumption  of  the  Reality  of  the 
phenomenal  world  destroys  itself.  To 
assume  the  Reality  of  so-called  material 
particles  is  to  lay  the  foimdation  of  an 
argument  which  surely  leads  to  the  con- 
clusion that  the  whole  world  of  my 
consciousness  is  produced  by  and  consists 
in  motions  in  that  certain  small  group  of 
these  same  molecules  which  is  assumed 
to  make  up  my  brain.  The  solution  is 
only  reached  when  we  discover  that  the 
€rror  lies  in  forgetting  that  the  Reality 
which  is  the  seat  of  what  constitutes  my 
Presentment  is  itself  unperceived,  and 
that  what  I  commonly  call  a  body  and  a 
brain  are  simply  the  phenomena  occurring 
in  my  Presentment  which  I  associate 
with  the  existence  of  other  such  real 
organic  entities,  just  as  I  believe  that 
my  organism  would  similarly  afffect  the 
Presentments  of  others,  by  originatino- 
energetic  changes  which  are  transmitted 

K 


50 


THE    DOCTRINE    OF    ENERGY 


to  and  so  aifect  the  organisms  of  such 
other  persons.  The  real  substratum  of 
my  Presentment  is  a  part  of  the  energetic 
Universe,  which  is  constantly  undergoing 
transmutations,  and  at  the  points  where 
it  is  in  union  as  organism  with  in- 
telligence these  transmutations,  as  affect- 
ing and  perceived  by  such  intelligence, 
constitute  its  Presentment  or  sense- 
experience  ;  and  aided  by  the  construc- 
tive activity  of  thought  expand,  as  it 
were,  subjectively  into  a  whole  world 
of  experience,  as  the  electric  current 
vibrating  darkly  along  the  narrow 
confines  of  the  wire  suddenly  expands  at 
the  carbon  point  into  the  luminous  un- 
dulations which  light  a  city. 

We  admit,  therefore,  to  the  full  the 
actuality  and  objectivity  of  the  sensible 
presentation.  We  only  deny  that  it  is  the 
real  thing-in-itself.  The  latter  is  not  dis- 
covered by  sense.  My  energetic  organ- 
ism is  like  a  well-fitting  garment ;  I  do 


THE    DOCTRINE    OF   ENERGY 


51 


not  feel  it  at  all.     I  feel  only  changes  or 
transmutations  taking  place  in  it.     Be 
not  alarmed,  therefore,  for  your  common 
sense  world.     We  leave  it  to  you  intact 
and  actual — not  deducting  even  a  single 
primary  quality.     Allowing  fully  for  the 
extent  to  which,  little  suspected  by  you^ 
it  is  a  mentally  constructed  system,  its 
elements  are  still  actual  and  non-egoistic ; 
they  are   modes   of  Reality;  extension 
and    the    other    primary  qualities    are 
qualities  of  these  modes.     Moreover,  the 
Ego,  I,  myself,  as  Will,  as  a  continuously 
identic  intelligent  agent,  am  not  given  to 
myself  immediately  in  my  Presentment, 
any  more    than    the    non-egoistic    real 
thing.     The  existence  of  my  Ego,  of  my 
soul,  Is   an   inference   which  I  am  com^ 
pelled   to   draw   from   the   facts   of    my 
mental  activity.     Similarly,  my  energetic 
organism   is   the  real  a-Wical  thino--in- 
Itself  which  I  am  compelled  to  postulate 
IP   order   to   explain  my  perception   of 


52 


THE  DOCTRINE  OF  ENERGY 


THE  DOCTRINE  OF  ENERGY 


53 


physical  phenomena  in  the  light  of  my 
physical  activity. 

We  have  not  time  to  explain  in  detail 
the  unique  position  in  our  Presentment 
occupied  by  the  visual  presentation. 
Its  universality,  simultaneousness, 
minute  accuracy,  quantifiability,  &c., 
are  such  that  it  is  really  to  the  visual 
Presentment  that  I  refer  all  other 
elements  in  my  sense-experience.  I 
think  of  them  with  reference  to  it.  It  is 
in  connection  with  it  that  I  mentally 
construct  my  whole  world.  Above  all, 
I  can  associate  with  some  modification  of 
the  visual  presentation  the  phenomena 
resultant  upon  the  energetic  activity  of 
my  own  organism,  and  the  other  forces 
and  potential  Energies  which  that  activity 
reveals  and  suggests.  It  is  thus  that  I 
derive  the  compound  idea  of  Body  as 
consisting  of  Figure,  Extension,  and 
Solidity.  The  continued  appearance  in 
my  visual  presentation  of  the  grey  colour 


which  I  am  now  seeinof  is  to  me  the  sijm 
of  the  continued  persistence  of  that 
potential  Energy  in  virtue  of  which  I 
regard  it  as  the  appearance  of  a  solid, 
extended  stone  wall.  Everything  is 
referred  to  the  visual  presentation,  and 
it  is  in  reference  to  it  that  the  mind 
works  in  constructing  its  world. 

The  whole  theory  of  molecular  action 
is  a  theory  constructed  in  reference  to 
the  visual  presentation — the  reality  of 
which,  strangely,  it  seems  to  result  in 
overthrowing.  A  born-blind  man  could 
never  have  invented  the  conception  of 
atoms  or  molecules.  This  is  Avell  worth 
thinking  over.  The  few  boni-blind 
persons  do  not  possess  our  ideas  of  Space 
and  Extension.  The  visual  presentation 
is  not  really  fundamental ;  and  we  must 
undo  the  inversion  induced  by  its  great 
convenience  whereby  we  refer  to  it  all 
the  other  elements  of  our  sense- experience 
and  conceive    of  our   activity  and   our 


54 


THE  DOCTRINE  OF  ENERGY 


THE  DOCTRINE  OF  ENERGY 


55 


whole  actual  world  by  reference  to  the 
visible  sign.  It  is  in  consequence  of  this 
reference  to  the  visual  that  bodies, 
objects,  appear  as  discrete  units,  so  that 
it  is  difficult  to  conceive  that  the  real 
thing  in  virtue  of  which  we  experience 
the  perception  of,  say,  a  heap  of  stones,  is 
truly  more  or  less  potential  Energy,  just 
as  the  continuous  process  of  thought  is 
very  different  from  the  discrete  and 
brokens  symbols  of  speech. 

I  naturally  and  habitually  refer  to 
the  visual  extended  image  presented  to 
sight  as  the  primary  basis  of  my  idea 
of  the  world,  or  of  any  particular  part  of 
the  world,  such  as  my  dining-room. 
Why  ?  Simply  because,  for  the  reasons 
already  noted,  the  sense  of  sight  is  the 
sense  of  universal  reference.  In  prin- 
ciple it  is  the  same  habitual  tendency 
which  makes  me  associate  every  element 
of  my  world  with  its  appropriate  name. 
It  is  different  in  other  cases.     When  I  am 


^absent  from  Niagara  I  do  not,  in  thinking 
of  it,  primarily  associate  it  with  the  roar 
of  sound.  I  never  fall  to  the  same  extent 
into  the  error  of  thinking  of  the  sound,  as 
such,  continuing,  although  I  am  not  pre- 
sent to  hear  it.  I  think  of  certain  events 
proceeding  which,  if  I  were  present, 
would  occasion  the  subjective  sensations 
of  sound.  But  for  the  habitual  tendency 
arisins:  from  the  universal  reference  to 
the  visible  I  would  do  the  same  in  the 
case  of  the  visual  image.  All  I  am 
necessitated  to  think  is  a  real  event — a 
real,  energetic,  physical,  dynamical  trans- 
mutation,— proceeding  quite  independ- 
ently of  my  perception  or  presence,  and  if 
I  can  only  manage  to  realize  that  I  must, 
for  philosophical  purposes,  eliminate  my 
reference  to  visual  sensations  with  equal 
stringency,  as  in  the  case  of  audible  or 
other  sensations,  I  will  understand  that 
all  I  am  entitled  to,  and  all  I  can,  without 
hopeless  contradiction,  postulate  as  real 


i « 


56 


THE  DOCTRINE  OF  ENERGY 


THE  DOCTRINE  OF  ENERGY 


57 


thing  existing  and  occurring  indepen- 
dently of  my  perception,  is  a  transmuta- 
tion of  Energy.  This  Energy  is  real,  in- 
dependently existent,  unextended,  un- 
figured,  yet  by  no  means  a  mere  logical  or 
mental  necessity  or  associative  tendency, 
though  it  is  by  an  imperative  mental 
necessity  that  I  am  still  obliged,  by  infer- 
ence from  my  experiences  as  an  active 
and  percipient  agent,  vitally  related  to  my 
energetic  and  sentient  organism,  to  postu- 
late the  energetic  system  in  which  I  am 
involved,  and  with  one  particular  centre 
in  which  I  am  organically  and  so  actively 
and  percipiently  related. 

But  we  recall  at  this  point  that  Science 
says  she  must  still  postulate  Matter  as  the 
vehicle  of  Energy.  But  what  does  that 
mean  except  that  the  subject  of  her 
studies  is  the  sensible  presentation  which, 
itself  consists  of  energy  transmutation  in. 
part  constantly  changing  but  with  rela- 
tively permanent  and  recurrent  elements^ 


and  in  which  she  involuntarily  includes 
the  mentally  constructed  system  of  beliefs 
and  postulates  which,  associated  with  the 
more  permanent  elements  of  that  presen- 
tation, constitute  what  we  call  bodies? 
If  the  sensible  presentation  consisted  of 
one  continuous,  unchanging  phenomenon, 
Reason  would  never  be  stimulated,  and 
Personality,  Cause,   Power  would  never 
have  been  postulated  or  conceived.     But 
the   transmutation   is    constantly   being 
•*  accelerated,"  incessantly  fluctuates,  and 
varies.     Certain   of    these   variations   I 
recognize  as  related   to   my   own  voli- 
tional activity,  and  thus  I  am  furnished 
with  a  key  which  enables  me,  by  a  sym- 
pathetic  analogy,   to    attribute   all  the 
changes   in   my    experience   to   various 
ao'ents,  now   all    (including  those  asso- 
ciated  with  my  Volition)  related  to  each 
other    as     transmutations     of    physical 
Energy,  some   of  which   I   can  further 
trace  to  the  initiative  of  Volition  of  my- 


58 


THE   DOCTRINE   OF   ENERGY 


self  of  other  persons  ;  others  I  can  only 
recognize  as  integral  parts  of  the  vast 
energetic  system  of  Nature,  the  stimulus 
of  which  I  cannot  follow  further. 

The  reality  of  Matter  is  said  to  be 
proved  by  its  indestructibility ;  but  this 
characteristic  can  easily  be  resolved  into 
the  indestructibility  of  Space  and  Exten- 
sion (which  we  have  seen  to  be  merely 
another  name  for  the  necessity  or  in- 
evitable universality  of  the  general  laws 
and  conditions  of  Energy  transmutation 
Avithin  the  organism),  together  with  the 
indestructibility  of  the  Energy  to  the 
transmutations  of  which  we  attribute  the 
forces  of  Cohesion  and  Gravitation. 

All  vital  activity  is  but  a  producing 
of  changes  in  the  stream  of  transmuta- 
tion. We  never  do,  nor  in  the  nature  of 
things  do  we  ever  try  to,  increase  or 
diminish  the  quantity  of  the  real  Energy 
itself.  We  instinctively  recognize  the 
objective  source  of  our  physical  power, 


THE   DOCTRINE   OF   ENERGY 


59 


and  this  has  led  some  thinkers  to  suppose 
that  the  indestructibility  of  Matter  is  an 
a  priori  datum  of  thought,  but   as  we 
have  already  seen  in  the  case   of  space 
the  a  'priority  and  necessity  of  this  con- 
ception are  derived  from  the  necessary 
laws    of    the    energetic    organism,    the 
transmutations      of     which,      however 
stimulated  from  beyond  its  own  limits, 
themselves  alone   constitute  the    entire 
sensible     presentation.     Many    a     long 
contest    between    the    supporters    of  a 
priori  and   experiential  knowledge  can 
be    set    at    rest  by  this    view   of   the 
mediating    functions    of   the    energetic 

organism. 

We  cannot  enlarge  here  upon  the  wide 
subject  suggested  by  our  reflections. 
The  scientific  doctrine  of  Energy  would 
seem  to  be  pregnant  with  momentous 
consequences  for  Philosophy,  and  it  is 
worth  while  for  metaphysicians  to  devote 
to   this   subject  the   deepest   and  most 


GO 


THE  DOCTRINE  OF  ENERGT 


THE  DOCTRINE  OF  ENERGY 


61 


deliberate  thought.  The  results  cannot 
easily  be  grasped  by  a  mere  cursory 
perusal  of  memoranda,  in  which  we  have 
only  sketched  a  few  salient  aspects  of  the 
doctrine.  We  deprecate  unwarrantable 
assurance,  and  are  fully  conscious  of  the 
difficulty  of  adequately  expressing 
thought  on  such  a  theme  ;  but  we  have 
not  written  rashly  nor  without  good 
grounds  for  asking  attentions. 

Science,  it  seems  to  us,  postulates  in 
Energy  an  a-logical,  unextcnded,  real 
thing-in-itself  in  terms  of  which  the 
phenomena  of  Physics  can  be  adequately 
and  quantifiably  stated,  and  at  the  same 
time  furnishes  Philosophy  with  a  theory 
of  the  non-egoistic  real  thing-in-itself 
which  satisfies  those  necessities  of  thought 
by  which  we  are  constrained  to  interpret 
our  sense-experience  by  a  constant 
reference  to  a  Reality  beyond  it  (a 
necessity  due  to  our  association  as  Will 
with  an  Energy  beyond  that  which  is  the 


seat  of  our  Presentment),  which  wholly 
avoids  the  incurable  difficulties  and  con- 
tradictions involved  in  any  theory  of  the 
realitv  of  extended    material  substance 
(of  any  theory  indeed,  which  asserts  the 
reality— as  presented — of  any  element  of 
the  sensible  presentation),  which  is  con- 
sistently thinkable   as   co-existent  with 
the  thing-in-itself— be  it  ultimately  In- 
telligence  or  Volition — of  which  our  cog- 
nitive and  conative  existence  is  a  ma- 
nifestation ;— and   which  by  explaining 
all   phenomena  as   transmutations   pro- 
ceeding (according  to  the  definite  mathe- 
matical laws  prevailing  throughout  the 
whole  Universe  of  Energy)  at  that  point 
in  the  system  which  is  organically  related 
to  Consciousness  accounts  at  once  for  the 
apparent  d  priority  and  necessity  of  the 
qualities  of  Space  and  at  the  same  time  for 
their  evident  universality  and  objectivity. 
In  a  word,  it  would  rather  seem  as  if 
Science,    unconscious    of    its    pregnant 


T 


62 


THE  DOCTRINE  OF  ENERGY 


THE  DOCTRINE  OF  ENERGY 


bo 


possibilities,  has  not  only  formulated  a 
theory  which  co-ordinates  and  unifies  the 
entire  fabric  of  physical  knowled  <ye,  but  has 
also  at  length  furnished  Philosophy  with 
the  key  to  that  problem  the  solution  of 
which  has,  in  the  words  of  Schopenhauer, 
been  the  main  endeavour  of  philosophers 
for  more  than  two  centuries,  namely  to 
separate  by  a  correctly  drawn   line   of 
cleavage  the  Ideal— that  which  belongs  to 
our  knowledge  as  such— from  the  Real, 
that  which  exists  independently  of  us ; 
and  thus   to  determine   the   relation   of 
each  to  the  other. 

To  us  it  seems  not  strange  that 
Philosophy  should  in  the  end  be  indebted 
to  Science,  for  this  solution — nor  should 
Science,  in  the  hour  of  her  greatest 
speculative  victory,  object  too  hastily  to 
the  assistance  which  the  thinker,  trained 
to  the  study  of  the  process  of  thought, 
can  render  in  clarifying  and  re-stating 
in   its    metaphysical    aspects   a    theory 


which,  if  profoundly  conceived  and  for- 
mulated by  men  of  science  from  Rumford 
and  Davy  to  Stewart.  Tait,  and  Kelvin, 
was  partially  anticipated  by  the  meta- 
physician who  conceived  the  world  as  will 

and  idea. 

We  maintain,  therefore,  that  the  pre- 
sentation  of   sense,    the   continuum   or 
manifold,  or  what  you  will,  consists  in 
the  transmutations  of  a  real  substance 
itself  unextended  and  unperceived  ;  that 
the  laws   of    these    transmutations   are 
what  constitute   the   geometric   all- con- 
taining Space;  that  at  a  point  in  this 
real  energetic  system  organically  related 
to  the  intelligent  self,  the  transmutations 
occurring  there  constitute  the  individual's 
sensible  experience;  that  his  mind,  by 
also  actively  influencing  the  system  at 
that   point,   can  stimulate  the  train  of 
transmutations  which  constitute  his  world 
of  ideas;  that   the    mind   can   discover 
itself  as  AVill  influencing  transmutations 


64 


THE  DOCTRINE  OF  ENERGY 


THE  DOCTRINE  OF  ENERGY 


65 


fi| 


in  the  organism  which  are  transmitted 
through  a  wider,  larger  portion  of  the 
system  ;  and  can  recognize  the  transmu- 
tations at  the  related  point  as  influenced 
sometimes  by  its  own  Volition  and  (some- 
times) by  other  wills  or  agents.  We 
seek  to  bring  the  added  light  of  scientific 
theory  to  reconcile  the  conflict  between 
the  law  and  the  fact,  between  the  objects 
of  reflection  and  the  objects  of  sense, 
between  the  world  of  thought  and  the 
world  of  phenomena, — the  problem 
which  Plato  raised  and  which  has  since 
been  the  central  problem  of  Metaphysics ; 
and  in  so  doing  we  present  a  doctrine 
which  not  only  maintains  the  truth  of 
the  Ideal,  and  the  actuality  of  the  pheno- 
menal, and  the  relative  reality  of  both, 
but  which  proves,  with  all  the  cogency 
of  Science,  how  it  is  that  the  sensible  is 
permeated  by  and  made  knowable  only 
by  the  Ideal,  by  the  laws  of  the  trans- 
mutations   which    constitute    actuality, 


and  that,  on  the  other  hand,  the  Ideal  only 
enters  experience  as  the  regulative  prin- 
ciple of  the  ever- transmuting  Reality. 

The  world  consists  not  merely  of 
phenomena,  nor  of  phenomena  and  laws 
which  regulate  them.  These  are  but 
transitional  and  imperfect  aspects  of 
Reality.  *^  Our  standard  "  of  Truth  and 
Reality,  says  a  recent  writer,  **  moves  us 
on  towards  an  individual  with  laws  of  its 
own,  and  to  laws  which  form  the  vital 
substance  of  a  single  existence."  We 
approach  such  a  goal  in  the  conception 
of  Energy, — the  reality,  the  laws  of 
whose  constant  transmutations  are  what 
we  call  Nature. 

We  must  distinguish  Energy  as  Abso- 
lute Reality  from  such  conceptions  as 
Activity,  which  is  merely  phenomenal,  or 
as  Force,  which  is  really  the  rate  at  which 
Energy  is,  in  certain  cases,  transformed. 
Dynamics,  which  investigates  Force,  is  a 
study  of  the  fundamental  transmutations 


(iG 


THE   DOCTRINE    OF   ENERGY 


of  Energy.  It  postulate's  Energy  as  the 
Real  Entity  in  terms  of  which  it  can 
frame  a  satisfactory  theory  of  dynamical 
phenomena. 

The  metaphysical  labours  of  the 
century  which  has  elapsed  since  Kant 
have  not  been  altogether  in  vain.  The 
deeper  thinkers  are  pretty  nearly  agreed 
that  the  Absolute  is  not  to  be  identified 
with  any  appearances,  as  such.  How 
far  they  can  bring  home  this  view  in 
practical  form  to  the  intelligence  of  man 
is  another  matter.  Plato  was  not  far 
behind  them,  but  the  tide  of  speculation 
ebbed  after  his  death,  and  its  healing 
waters  never  inundated  the  deserts  of 
mediaeval  thought.  The  discursive 
weakness  in  which  the  speculation  of  the 
transcendental  Philosophy  seems  to  dissi- 
pate itself  makes  us  fear  a  similar  decline. 
Metaphysics  must  receive  the  assistance 
of  the  great  speculative  achievement  of 
Physics.     It  must  realize  that  Science 


THE   DOCTRINE    OF   ENERGY 


67 


can  postulate  a  Reality  imperceived  and 
imqualified  by  the  conditions  of  sense, 
but  in  terms  of  which  Science  can  explain 
the  whole  phenomena  of  the  sensible 
presentation  in  their  objective  aspect, 
explain  these  as  transmutations  of  the 
Reality,  proceeding  in  accordance  with 
the  general  mathematical  laws  under 
which  Reality  transmutes  itself. 

It  may  be  said  that  reason  requires  us 
to  think  that  the  universe  is  a  unity. 
Where  do  you  embrace  within  Reality  in 
such  a  view  of  it.  Intelligence,  Volition, 
Feeling?  We  answer;  Of  course, 
obviously  Reality,  as  postulated  by 
Physics,  does  not  contain  these.  But  the 
Absolute  postulated  by  Physics,  is  but  one 
aspect  of  the  whole,  and  may  be,  must  be, 
merged  in  a  higher  Reality  of  which  phe- 
nomena, on  the  one  hand,  and  Thought, 
Conation,  Feeling,  on  the  other,  are  the 
appearances.  That  involves  a  further 
advance,   the    attainment    of   a  higher 


68 


THE    DOCTRINE    OF    ENERGY 


degree  of  Truth  which  would  bridge  the 
Dualism  of  Thought  and  Existence,  of 
Self  and  Not-self,  of  Spirit  and  Nature, 
and  whilst,  on  the  one  hand,  such  Reality- 
must  fundamentally  be  a-logical,  on  the 
other  hand,  Energy  may  probably  owe 
its  Energy  to  Spirit. 

In  the  dualism  which  we  must,  in  ex- 
perience, recognize,  we  notice  one  funda- 
mental distinction;  quantification,  mea- 
surability,  appear  the  attributes  of  the 
physical ;  quality,  ideality,  of  the  spi- 
ritual. The  apprehension,  therefore,  of 
the  doctrine  of  Energy  should  accomplish 
in  clarity  and  security  the  abolition  of 
the  intolerable  contradictions  which  have 
hitherto  involved  the  search  for  Reality 
amid  its  appearances.  We  think  it 
suggests  the  most  satisfying  explanation 
of  the  distinction  which  separates,  and 
the  principle  which  relates  Ideality  and 
Externality,  and  should  obviate  the 
almost  childish   efforts  of  transcendent- 


i^^ :  /f -»-- 


THE   DOCTRINE   OF   ENERGY 


69 


^lists  to  expound  the  relation  of  the  Ego 
to  a  body  which  is  involved  in,  and  which 
is  yet — for  the  individual — distinguished 
they  cannot  tell  us  how  from  the  whole 
system  of  Nature. 

Of  course,  neither  Thought  nor  Volition 
as  such,  can  be  the  absolute  Reality. 
They,  like  Physical  Force,  are  but  trans- 
mutations, affections,  phases  of  Reality. 
Nor,  again,  is  Energy,  as  a  quality,  a 
<;orrect  description  of  the  Absolute,  as 
such.  The  Absolute,  as  such,  we  can- 
not describe;  but  in  studying,  as  Physics 
4oes,  the  relations  of  physical  phenomena 
and  stating  these  in  terms  of  Reality, 
it  conveniently  gives  Reality  a  name 
appropriate  to  its  own  standpoint. 

Metaphysics  rightly  declines  to  be 
required  to  study  special  branches  of 
Science.  Nothing  but  grotesque  ab- 
surdity ensues  when  this  precaution  is 
overlooked.  Yet  Metaphysics  has 
hitherto   thought  itself  the  better  of  a 


70 


THE   DOCTRINE   OF   ENERGY 


little  logic,  and  in  the  future  it  will 
have  to  grasp  the  scientific  conception  of 
Reality.  There  is  nothing  else  for  it ;  and 
after  all,  it  is  remarkable  how  far  the 
most  fundamental  conceptions  of  ]\Ieta- 
physics  are  dependent  on  a  physical 
origin. 

Surely  it  is  of  primary  importance  to 
realize  the  effect  upon  our  conceptions  of 
Space  and  Extension  of  the  doctrine  of 
the  transmutations  of  Energy.  Even  the 
profoundest  Metaphysics  have  seemingly 
failed  to  explain  how  Space,  Matter,  and 
Extension  can  be  reconciled  with  Reality. 
You  cannot  ignore  this  difficulty  by 
saying  that  these  are  the  working  con- 
ceptions of  particular  branches  of  phy- 
sical Science ;  but  when  you  realize  that 
physical  phenomena,  even  the  most- 
permanent  and  rigid,  are  by  scientific 
demonstration  but  transmutations  of  the 
real  thing,  you  can  conceive  that  Space, 
Body,  and  Extension  are  but  the  laws  and 


THE   DOCTRINE    OF   ENERGY 


71 


conditions  of  the  process.  As  appear- 
ances, and  within  the  realm  of  phenomena, 
they  seem  still  what  they  have  always 
seemed.  So  much  we  still  concede  with- 
out dimunition  or  obscurity,  and  at  the 
same  time  we  can  harmonize  them  as 
they  could  never  be  harmonized  before 
with  postulated  Reality. 

It  is  the  same  with  time.  The  facts 
of  memory  would  seem  to  imply  that 
there  is  no  succession  in  the  Absolute. 
We  are  always  present  at  all  times  of  our 
life.  In  recollecting  a  past  event  we  are 
contemplating  no  mere  image,  but  the 
actual  past  event  itself.  Our  chrono- 
metry  depends  on  the  annual  motion  of 
the  Earth  round  the  Sun.  It  has  thus 
a  purely  physical  basis. 

We  might  illustrate  the  application  of 
the  doctrine  of  Energy  to  every  depart- 
ment of  Metaphysics.  But  such  is  not 
the  object  of  the  present  essay.  We 
merely  desire  to  indicate  briefly  some  of 


..lZ-»-- 


12 


THE   DOCTRINE    OF   ENERGY 


the  many  aspects  of  the  theory,  and  if 
only  we  have  been  able  to  suggest  a  Ime 
of  inquiry,  the  primary  object  of  this 
essay  has  been  attained. 


The  Empirical  Origin  of  the 
Conception  of  Mass. 

It  is  interesting  to  note  how  the  scientific 
conception  of  Mass  or  quantity  of  Matter 
depends  originally  upon  the  information 
derived  from  our  primitive  active  ex- 
perience. ^ 

The  natural  philosopher  defines  Mass 
in  the  following  way : — Two  different 
substances  are  of  the  same  mass  when 
the  same  force  produces  in  each,  after  it 
has  acted  on  it  for  the  same  time,  the 
same  velocity. 

Now,  this  is  not  true  of  all  natural 
forces, — of  say,  the  force  of  magnetism, — 
which  might  produce  very  dififerent 
velocities  upon  two  bodies  of  the  same 
mass,  if  the  one  were,  say,  a  piece  of  iron 
and  the  other  some  body  less  susceptible 


II 


V 


■i,f 


74 


THE  DOCTKINE   OF  ENERGY 


of  magnetic  attraction.  Nor  can  it  in 
the  first  place  be  asserted  to  be  true  of 
Gravitation  any  more  than  of  Magnetism. 
It  was  ascertained  by  Newton  to  be  true 
of  Gravitation  by  his  pendulum  experi- 
ments ;  but  it  might  not  have  been  so. 

The  Force  to  which  the  definition  must 
fundamentally  refer  is  simply  ordinary 
**  mechanical "  Force  (as  it  is  somewhat 
incorrectly  called),  the  force  manifested 
in  any  of  the  primitive  transmutations 
of  Energy  which  take  place  around  us, 
which  is  incident  to  the  activity  involved 
in  our  locomotive  vitality, — human  or 
animal  muscular  force. 

Quantity  of  Matter,  therefore,  funda- 
mentally and  originally  means  the  same 
as  amount  of  resistance  to  initiation  of 
motion,  at  first  estimated  by  the  varying 
amount  of  personal  muscular  Energy 
required  to  effect  the  motion  in  question, 
thereafter  objectively  and  scientifically 
by  comparison  with  some   independent 


THE  DOCTRINE   OF   ENERGY 


75 


standard  whereby  a  more  exact  estima- 
tion can  be  attained  than  was  possible 
by  mere  reference  to  the  varying  infer- 
ences of  the  individual  who  might  exert 
the  force. 

Inertia  is,  therefore,  proportional  to 
Mass ;  and  the  statement  that  force  must 
overcome  inertia,  simply  means  that 
there  must  be  a  definite  quantity  of 
Energy  transformed  before  a  particular 
phenomenon  can  occur. 

Scientific  men  cling  to  the  assertion 
that  Energy  cannot  exist  except  in 
connection  with  Matter.  Now,  in  order 
of  time,  the  Energy  which  we  attribute  to 
the  force  of  cohesion  seems  a  condition 
precedent  to  the  manifestation  of  the 
Energy  which  we  associate  with  the  Force 
of  Gravitation  or  to  any  of  the  other 
forms  of  Energy  which  enter  into  our 
experience,  but  suppose  the  Energy 
which  we  associate  with  the  molecular 
forces  withdrawn,  and  you  will  have  some 


76 


THE   DOCTRINE   OF   ENERGY 


difficulty  in  saying  what  material  bodies 
remain,  for,  in  fact,  you  have  no  grounds 
for    regarding  atoms   or    molecules    as 
other  than  the  centres  of  certain  forces. 
The  truth  is,  in  all  scientific  reasoning 
you  must  begin  by  defining  your  system ; 
you  must  make  a  start  somewhere,  and 
the  point  of  departure  must  really  be 
arbitrarily   selected;    our  knowledge   of 
Nature  is  not  founded   on  an  absolute 
basis  and  has  no  absolute  point  of  depar- 
ture ;  a  selected  datum  of  configuration 
must    be    postulated    before    you    can 
proceed  to  reason  upon  the  kinetics  of  a 
physical    system.     These   considerations 
largely  explain  the  reluctance  of  Science 
to  abandon  the  conception  of  Matter; 
but  they  afford   no   valid  grounds  for 
asserting    the    independent    reality    of 
material  substance  in  addition  to  energy, 
though    the    postulation    of   bodies    as 
phenomenal     data    is     a    necessity    in 
dynamical  reasoning. 


The  Conception  of  Matter   histori- 
cally REGARDED. 

The  popular  notion  of  Matter  which 
has  gradually  developed  within  the  last 
three  or  four  hundred  years  includes 
within  the  conception : 

(a)  A  congeries  or  collocation  of  sen- 
sations actual  or  imagined,  along  with 

(b)  A  substratum  or  basis  in  which 
such  sensations  (qualities)  remain  imma- 
nent. The  main  business  of  modem 
Philosophy  has  been  a  discussion  and 
examination  of  this  duplex  conception, 
and  the  many  and  incurable  defects 
which  it  involves  have  formed  the  theme 
of  some  of  the  most  eminent  thinkers ; 
yet  the  persistency  of  the  conception 
itself  has  nevertheless  been  very  remark- 
able and  is  almost  proof  that  the  true 
solution  of  the  problem  has  not  yet  been 
attained. 


m: 


78 


THE   DOCTRINE   OF   ENERGY 


Of  course,  in  all  ages  men  have  been 
conscious  of  the  same  principal  classes  of 
sense-phenomena,  and  in  all  ages  they 
have  learned  to  group  and  associate  these 
in  certain  fundamental  ways,  and  in  all 
ages  they  have  believed  in  some  external 
cause   of  these  phenomena.     Neverthe- 
less,  the   exact  idea  of  a  material    or 
tridimensionally    extended     substratum 
is  not  really  so   old  as  its   deep-seated 
persistency  in  modem  times  might  in- 
duce us  to  believe,  for  it  has  been  the 
ruling   conception  on   the   subject  both 
in  modem  Philosophy  and  in  modem 
Science. 

The  conception,  we  believe,  did  not 
fully  develop  until  after  the  establish- 
ment of  the  Copemican  theory  of 
astronomy  which  familiarized  the  idea  of 
illimitable  space  to  the  mind  of  man, — 
one  of  the  most  striking  illustrations  of 
how  our  conceptions  on  the  most  abstract 
subjects    are    dependent    on    the   ideas 


THE   DOCTRINE   OF   ENERGY 


79 


which  we  derive  from  the  concrete  and 
phenomenal  world  by  which  we  are 
surrounded. 

In  ancient  times  the  conception  of 
three  -  dimensioned  space  -  occupying 
Matter,  as  the  real  substratum  of 
phenomena,  was  much  less  strongly 
developed  and  much  less  markedly 
emphasized,  but  the  great  controversy 
which  has  raged  aroimd  this  subject  in 
modem  Philosophy  had  its  origin  and 
its  counterpart  in  the  discussions  of  the 
Lyceum  and  the  Academy. 

The  Metaphysics  of  Aristotle  pre- 
sent a  notable  parallelism  to  the 
theory  to  which  our  criticism  of  the 
notion  of  Matter  would  directly  lead. 
He  distinguished  between  existence 
potential  and  existence  actual,  or 
existence  cV  Swafxei  and  existence  iv 
ivipyeia.  These  terms,  it  seems  to  us, 
express  the  distinction  with  more 
elegance  than   do    those    employed  by 


S^i? 


80 


THE  DOCTRINE  OF  ENERGY 


THE  DOCTRINE  OF  ENERGY 


81 


recent   writers   on   science.      The   word 
Svvafxi.^  is  now  usually  translated  Force, 
and    there    is    little    doubt     that     the 
popular  conception  associated  with  the 
word  Force  is  very  like  potential  Energy, 
although  a  somewhat  different  meaning 
is  given   to    the    word    Force   by   the 
stricter  physicists.     Admitting   the  cor- 
rect use  of  the  term  to  be  exemplified  in 
expressions  such  as  the  Force  of  Cohe- 
sion or  of  Gravitation,  they  employ  it 
generally  as  a  name  for  one  aspect  of  the 
phenomenon   which    is    observed   when 
certain  transmutations   of  Energy   take 
place ;  the  word  Energy  is  applied  to  the 
operative    physical    agent   in  virtue   of 
which  all  such  transmutations  occur,  and 
is  held  to  include  that  agent,  whether 
existing    potentially    (or    as    Aristotle 
would  say  iv  Swa/ict)  or  actively  (or  as 
Aristotle  would  say  iv  cVcpy eta).     And 
it  is  important  to  observe  how  closely  the 
existence    cV    SJva/xct,   or    potential    of 


Aristotle  corresponds  to  the  potential 
Energy  of  modern  Science,  whilst  his 
existence,  ii/  eVepyeta,  corresponds  to 
Energy  in  its  kinetic  form.  The  vkr)  or 
real  physical  entity  of  Aristotle,  would 
<jorrespond  exactly  to  the  Energy  of  the 
modem  natural  philosophers,  and  in  its 
potential  state  both  of  them  would  agree 
that,  so  far  as  our  Consciousness  was 
concerned,  it  produced  no  sensible 
impression  upon  us,  and  could  only  be 
discovered  by  reasoned  inference  and 
deduction ;  whilst  in  its  kinetic  or  ener- 
getic state  it  was  the  cause  of,  or  rather 
it  constituted  the  objective  aspect  of,  the 
whole  system  of  sense-phenomena. 

The  chief  respect  in  which  Aristotle 
was  behind,  in  speculative  achievement, 
the  greatest  of  modem  minds,  was  simply 
that  his  knowledge  lacked  the  element 
of  quantification,  of  exact  measurement 
by  reference  to  independent  standards, 
which  modem  science,  led  by  Newton, 

G 


^% 


THE   DOCTRINE    OF    ENERGY 

Bacon,  Galileo,  and  others,  has  now 
supplied.  It  is  this  additional  element 
which  enables  us  to  cany  our  speculation 
farther  than  Aristotle  did,  and  which, 
supplying  a  link  between  ultimate  philo- 
sophic theory  and  every-day  experiences 
and  beliefs,  renders  it  possible  to  present 
the  highest  truth  in  a  shape  more  capable 
of  general  comprehension  and  of  being 
practically  applied  to  our  every-day 
beliefs  and  actions,  as  well  as  more 
certain  to  become  a  part  of  the  per- 
manent intellectual  heritage  of  the  race. 

The  absence  of  this  element  prevented 
Aristotle's  philosophy  from  being  im- 
pressed in  specific  and  identic  form  on 
the  commoner  minds  of  his  disciples,  but 
we  believe  that  his  own  conceptions 
were  as  profound  and  true  as  any  to 
which  we  have  yet  attained. 

The  Entelechy,  or  organizing  impulse, 
which,  according  to  Aristotle,  converted 
the  potential  v\r)  into  actuality,  remark- 


THE   DOCTRINE    OF   ENERGY 


8:3 


ably  describes  the  principle  or  impulse 
characteristic  of  all  Energy  in  the  scien- 
tific sense  (and  which  may  be  volitional) 
in  virtue  of  which  it  ig  ever  transmuting 
itself  in  various  ways,  according  to  multi- 
tudinous yet  definite  numerical  laws  and 
ratios.  These  laws  and  ratios,  according 
to  which  all  its  transmutations  occur, 
determine  the  structure  or  form  (the 
ElSos)  of  the  phenomenal  world. 

The  iJXT7  without  the  form  or  formative 
impulse  is  mere  arrcp-qaLs  or  privation ; 
we  are  not   directly  conscious  of  being 
in   any  relation  with   merely  potential 
Energy;    the    mere   "being- embodied" 
produces  in  us  no  sensation;   the  mere 
union  of  mind  with  physical  substance 
produces  no  impression  on  our  Conscious- 
ness.    It  is  when  a  change  takes  place  in 
the  potential  Energy  so  related  to  our 
consciousness;    when     it    undergoes    a 
transmutation  in  conformity  with   some 
of  these  laws,  in  accordance  with  which 


li 


•j'^. 


81 


THE  DOCTRINE  OF  ENERGY 


THE  DOCTRINE  OF  ENERGY 


85 


it  constantly  tends  so  to  transmute  itself — 
it  is  then  that  potentiality  is  transformed 
into  actuality  and  a  sensation  is  imme- 
diately experienced. 

See  Bishop  Berkeley's ''  Siris,"  266, 270, 
277,  287-290,  &c.,  and  especiaUy  312, 
where  Berkeley  well  states  Aristotle's 
argument  for  a  substratum  or  medium  of 
some  kind — a  vkrj  on  which  Intelligence, 
even  if  it  be  /xop<^a)(7a,  must  operate. 
Assume  this  vXrj  to  be  unextended,  and 
you  have  a  substratum  to  which  none  of 
Berkeley's  objections  apply,  and  which 
satisfies  the  requirements   of  "common 


sense. 


»> 


In  many  of  the  earlier  Greek  philo- 
sophers, notably  in  Pythagoras  and 
Heraclytus,  we  find  anticipations  of  the 
theory  of  Energy,  but  their  speculations 
were  subjective,  unscientific,  and  in- 
capable of  definite  and  permanent 
scientific  statement.  Indeed,  the  contrast 
between  ancient  and  modem  methods  is 


very  clearly  seen  by  contrasting  the 
speculations  of  the  old  Pythagoreans, 
men  by  no  means  destitute  of  high 
philosophic  genius,  with  the  scientific 
thought  of  the  great  mathematicians  of 
the  sixteenth  and  seventeenth  centuries — 
Copernicus,  Kepler,  Galileo,  and  Newton. 
Both  were  engaged  in  the  task  of  formulat- 
ing an  explanation  or  philosophy  of  Nature 
by  the  aid  of  the  study  of  numbers,  and 
it  is  not  quite  enough  to  say  that  the 
former  employed  a  priori  reasoning, 
whilst  the  latter  followed  the  Baconian 
method  of  inductive  observation  of 
Nature  herself.  Both  observed  Nature, 
and  both  employed  and  applied  their 
reason  in  and  to  their  observations,  and 
in  both  cases  the  speculations  were 
carried  on  by  men  of  the  highest  genius. 
But  the  real  difiference  is  simply,  that 
the  mathematicians  of  the  sixteenth  and 
seventeenth  centuries  quantified  their 
observations  by  the   aid  of  reference  to 


86 


THE   DOCTRINE   OF   ENERGY 


n\  I 


independent   standards,  instruments,  or 
other  standards,  whereby  their  judgments 
and  observations  were  strictly  measured 
and  compared.     Possibly  also  the  genius 
of  the  men  was,  especially  in  the  case  of 
Kepler  and  Newton,  greater  than  that  of 
any  of  the  early  Greek  philosophers  we 
have  named  ;  but  the  absence  of  quanti- 
fication  is  the  chief  reason  why  the  specu- 
lations of  the  former  soon  began  to  run 
riot  according  to  the  varieties  of  indi- 
vidual  fancy   and   diverged   into  moral 
analogies,  transient  and  unfruitful,  whilst 
the  modem  speculation  has  permanently 
revolutionized     man's      conception     of 
Nature,  and  produced  in  the  Copernican 
theory   of  astronomy    and    the   law   of 
Gravitation  the  most  splendid,  and  one  of 
the  most  truly  philosophic  contributions 
which  have  ever  been  made  to  the  struc- 
ture of  human  knowledge. 

The  defects  and  hopeless  inconsistencies 
of  the   "material*'    theory    were  soon 


THE   DOCTRINE    OF   ENERGY 


87 


noticed  by  and  have  formed  the  theme  of 
many  modem  philosophers,  yet  rather 
than  adopt  the  alternative  suggestion  of 
Berkeley  and  others  that  physical  pheno- 
mena are  directly  produced  by  Mind,  by 
Intelligence  in  some  form  or  other,  men 
have  preferred  to  cling  to  the  conception 
of  solid  and  substantial  Matter.  Not 
until  the  doctrine  of  Energy  arose,  by 
which  the  physical  Entity  was  conceived 
as  powerful,  efficient,  causative,  and 
quantifiable  yet  unextended,  not  until  then 
could  there  be  any  hope  of  a  middle 
course  being  discovered.  We  are  by  its 
aid  enabled  to  realize  the  subjectivity  of 
Space,  and  to  conceive  of  its  all-contain- 
ingness  as  merely  phenomenal.  We  can 
realize  this  actually,  veritably,  definitely, 
only  by  carefully  going  over  the  analysis 
and  criticism  of  Berkeley,  demolishing, 
firstly,  its  third  dimension,  and  then 
easily  showing  its  entire  dependence 
upon  a  percipient  mind.     It  was  in  re- 


88 


THE   DOCTRINE   OF   ENERGY 


THE    DOCTRINE    OF   ENERGY 


8i> 


lating  this  world  of  sense-phenomena  to- 
their  objective  correlative  that  Berkeley 
broke  down,  entirely  we  believe  owing  to 
his  having  failed  to  analyze  the  particulars^ 
of  our  active,  causative  experience  in  the 
same  thorough  way  in  which  he  analyzed 
those  of  our  passive  and  percipient  life. 

"  We  are  conscious,"  he  says  ("  Siris," 
291),  *^that  a  spirit  can  begin,  alter,  or 
determine  motion ;  but  nothing  as  this 
appears  in  body.  Nay,  the  contrary  is- 
evident  both  to  experience  and  reflec- 
tion."  And  he,  therefore,  assumes  that 
the  cause  or  objective  correlative  of  our 
sense-experience  must  be  a  spirit. 

He  omitted,  we  say,  to  analyze  in  detail 
the  way  in  which  we  do,  in  fact,  be^in, 
alter,  or  determine  Motion.  He  omitted 
to  analyze  the  experience  which  we 
undergo  when  we  either  move  our  own  or 
other  bodies.  He  forgot  that  "  body  "  is 
impregnated  by  Vis  Viva.  He  overlooked 
the  operation  of  the  forces  of  Natui'e,  the 


presence  of  hostile  power  opposed  to,  and 
confronting  our  own,  whenever  we  exert 
our  will,  the  difference  between  mere 
willing  and  actual  canying  out  of  our 
will,  the  fact  that  changes  in  our  sense- 
experience  do  not  always  occur  when  we 
will,  that  often  our  volitions,  even  if 
apparently  actually  carried  out,  produce 
a  very  different  change  in  our  sensations 
from  what  we  anticipated,  the  fact  that 
a  vast  quantity  of  sensation  changes  are 
constantly  going  on  around  us,  apart 
from  the  exercise  of  our  volition,  but 
apparently  associated  with  similar  mani- 
festations of  power.  All  these  important 
facts,  utterly  overlooked  by  Berkeley  and 
Hume,  suggest  the  presence  of  a  potential 
Entity  intervening  between  the  mind 
and  its  sensations  and  containing  within 
itself  the  power  to  originate  phenomenal 
changes,  an  Entity  indestructible,  efficient, 
and  some  of  which,  in  fluctuating  quan- 
tity, is  under  the  direction  of  our  active 


90 


THE    DOCTRINE    OF   ENERGY 


will,   whilst   much    more   surrounds   us 
everywhere,  but  is  beyond  our  power. 

When  Science  actually  carries  its  inves- 
tif^ations  so  far  as  to  be  able  to  name 
and  identify  this  Entity  ;  to  measure  its 
quantity,  and  to  adopt  a  unit  for  its 
calculation,  Philosophy  has  undoubtedly 
gained  the  assistance  of  a  fresh  ally. 

Habituated  to  the  conception  of  Matter 
we  find  it  very  difficult  to  realize  that 
this  Energy  is  not  space-contained.  We 
must  endeavour  to  understand  that  it  is 
and  must  be  so. 

Assume  the  reality  of  all-containing 
Space  and  visible  things.  These  are 
evidently  seen  to  be  the  direct  objects  of 
our  sense-experience;  but  if  we  now 
assume  them  to  be  also  objectively  real, 
and  on  that  assumption  proceed  with  our 
scientific  inquiry,  we  are  forced,  by  our 
knowledge  of  the  familiar  conditions 
under  which  the  organs  of  sense  receive 
and  transmit  their  impressions,  to  the 


THE   DOCTRINE    OF   ENERGY 


91 


conclusion  that  the  mind  is  never  truly 
in  direct  contact  with  these  objects  or 
phenomena,  these  visible  things  at  all, 
but  that  they  are  produced  in  it  by 
certain  changes  which  occur  in  a  small 
group  or  section  of  these  supposed  real, 
visible  things,  namely,  the  section  which 
we  call  the  individual  brain ;  but  the 
observer  must  remember  that  this  con- 
clusion must  apply  to  himself.  If  so,  he 
himself  is  merely  conscious  of  the  changes 
which  occur  in  his  own  brain,  and  does 
not  contemplate  directly  any  of  those 
objects  which  seem  to  make  up  his  sense- 
experience  on  the  objective  reality  of 
which  his  whole  argument  is  founded.  He 
has  no  right  to  assume  that  the  consti- 
tuent particles  in  his  brain,  the  changes 
in  which  result  in  the  sense-phenomena 
whose  reality  he  assumed  are,  in  fact,  self- 
existent  entities,  exactly  resembling  the 
phenomena  which  their  action  appears 
to  produce  in  his  Consciousness. 


92 


THE   DOCTRINE    OF   ENERGY 


The  conclusion  of  many  is  that  we  can 
know  nothing  of  the  real  cause  of  these 
phenomena.  But  the  reason  does,  in  fact, 
assume  such  a  cause,  and  our  contention  is 
that  what  we  actually  postulate  is  an 
unextended  energy,  quite  free  from  the 
contradictions  so  frequently  superinduced 
upon  it  by  the  theory  of  the  reality  of 
extended  Matter  and  at  the  same  time  free 
from  the  deficiencies  of  the  Berkeleyan 
theory  that  ascribes  such  phenomena 
in  the  direct  action  of  an  Intelligence. 

We  should  never  forget  that,  although 
our  conceptions  of  this  efficient,  potential 
Entity  are  derived  from  our  sense-expe- 
rience, they  are  reasoned  inferences  from 
this  experience  and  not  actually  a 
portion  thereof,  and  it  is,  therefore, 
erroneous,  though  natural,  to  regard 
them  when  once  formed  in  our  minds, 
constituents      of     that     world     of 


as 


sense-experience  from  the  observation  of 
which  they  are  by  early  and  almost  un- 


^mnrii 


THE   DOCTRINE    OF   ENERGY 


93 


conscious  mental  inference  deduced.  We 
are  apt  thus  to  project  into  the  changing 
world  of  subjective  sensations  the 
reason  and  inferential  notions  of  Solidity, 
&c.,  which  our  mind  derives  from  these 
experiences,  and,  as  our  Consciousness  is 
itself  awakened  by,  and  amidst  these 
sense-experiences  we  are  even  impelled 
to  regard,  not  only  our  own  bodies  but 
ourselves,  as  space- contained. 

The  difficulty  of  the  investigation  is  got 
over  when  we  succeed  in  realizing  the 
possibility  of  existence  imconditioned 
by  Space  and  in  conceiving  of  Space  and 
extension  as  qualifying  only  the  sensible 
impression  produced  upon  our  conscious- 
ness by  the  activity  of  the  principle 
of  transmutation  wnich  interpenetrates 
all  Energy  and  stimulates  the  motions 
of  the  potential  world. 

The  omission  which  we  have  empha- 
sized in  Berkeley  was  xmfortunately 
perpetuated  by  Hume. 


94 


THE   DOCTRINE   OF   ENEKGY 


He  denies  that  Berkeley  had  any  right 
to  suggest  spirit  as  a  cause  of  motion, 
"  which  might  as  easily  arise,"  he  said, 
**  from  impulse  J  as  from  volition.  All 
we  know  is  *  our  profound  ignorance/  " 

We  are,  of  course,  only  entitled  to 
argue  from  experience  of  our  own 
individual  Consciousness,  but  an  analysis 
of  our  active  Consciousness  will  show 
how  it  is  that  we  are  enabled,  in  a  way 
which  did  not  occur  to  Hume,  to  appoint 
their  respective  functions  to  Impulse  and 
to  Volition  in  the  origination  of  the 
phenomena  of  Motion. 

"  Suppose,"  says  Hume,  "  suppose  a 
person,  though  endowed  with  the 
strongest  faculties  of  reason  and  reflec- 
tion, to  be  brought  on  a  sudden  into  this 
world.  He  would  immediately  observe 
a  succession  of  objects,  and  one  event 
following  another ;  but,  he  would  not  be 
able  to  discover  anything  further  .  .  . 
their  conjunction  may  be  arbitrary  and 


THE   DOCTRINE    OF   ENERGY 


95 


casual.  There  may  be  no  reason  to  infer 
the  appearance  of  the  one  from  the 
appearance  of  the  other.  .  .  .  Suppose, 
again,  that  he  has  acquired  more 
experience  and  has  lived  so  long  in  the 
world  as  to  have  observed  similar  objects 
or  events  to  be  constantly  conjoined 
together,  what  is  the  consequence  of  this 
experience  ?  He  immediately  infers  the 
existence  of  the  one  object  from  the 
appearance  of  the  other.  Yet,  he  has 
not,  by  all  his  experience,  acquired  any 
idea  or  knowledge  of  the  secret  power  by 
which  the  one  object  produces  the  other, 
nor  is  it  by  any  process  of  reasoning  he 
is  engaged  to  draw  the  inference,  but 
still  he  finds  himself  somehow  determined 
to  draw  it.  .  .  .  There  is  some  other 
principle  which  determines  him  to  form 
such  a  conclusion.  This  principle  is  cus- 
tom or  habit.  ,  .  .  Perhaps  we  can  push 
our  inquiries  no  farther.  All  inferences 
from  experience,  therefore,  are  effects  of 


96 


THE    DOCTRINE    OF    ENERGY 


custom,  not  of  reasoning.  Custom,  then, 
is  the  great  guide  of  human  life.'* 
'  Our  contention  is  that  by  attending  to 
the  neglected  facts  of  our  active  expe- 
rience we  can  push  our  inquiries  farther, 
and  we  do  obtain  a  knowledge  of  the 
secret  power  by  which  one  object  produces 
the  other,  or  rather  in  the  first  instance, 
of  the  secret  power  through  the  interme- 
diation of  which  we  can,  ourselves,  so  far 
change  and  vary  the  current  of  events, 
and  to  whose  agency  we  come  to  attri- 
bute all  changes  which  we  do  find  to 
occur. 

We  do  not  suggest  that  we  attain  to 
any  transcendental  knowledge  of  this 
secret  power  or  of  what  it  is  in  itself. 
Its  existence  is  an  inference  of  the 
reason,  and  is  not  directly  revealed, 
nor  capable  of  intuition.  But  we  are 
ccnnpelled  by  direct  and  necessary  infer- 
ence to  believe  in  its  existence,  in  our 
possession  of  some  of  it  in  limited  and 


THE  DOCTRINE   OF  ENERGY 


97 


ever-varying  quantity,  and  of  the  exis- 
tence of  other  quantities  not  under  our 
control.  In  the  facts  of  our  active 
experience  we  find  a  principle  deter- 
mining us  to  draw  this  inference  ;  and  it 
is  to  be  noted  that  our  knowledge  of,  and 
belief  in,  the  other  possible  agent,  viz. 
Volition,  the  will  of  the  Ego,  is  itself  merely 
a  very  similar  inference  of  the  Reason. 
The  existence  of  myself  is  not  a  fact  of 
experience  intuitively  revealed,  but  an 
inference  from  the  experiences  of  my 
mental  activity.  Gogito,  ergo  sum.  In 
like  manner  the  relation  which  we  con- 
ceive to  subsist  between  Power  or 
Energy  and  the  changes  in  our  sense- 
experience  is  a  result  of  rational  inference 
from  experience,  and  is  quantifiable  and 
capable  of  scientific  calculation.  It  is 
hence  that  we  derive  our  notion  of  what 
we  caU  a  cause.  What  ontological  Be- 
yond may  remain  unexplored  it  is  not 
for  us  to  say ;  but  the  main  point  we 

H 


98 


THE   DOCTRINE   OF  ENERGY 


have  gained  is  the  explanation  of  the 
origin  of  our  belief  in  a  power  entitled 
to  the  attribute  of  Reality,  entitled  to  be 
viewed  as  an  independent,  at  least  of  us 
independently  existing  Entity  in  whose 
changes  and  modifications  we  find  a 
rational  explanation  of  sensible  pheno- 
mena. 

We,  therefore,   deny    Hume's  propo- 
sition that  our  notion   of  Causality  is 
derived  from  any  mere  customary  associa- 
tion of  recurrent  sensations.     We  deny 
that  mankind,  we  deny  that  any  sinf^le 
man  ever  did  or  does  regard  any  sensa- 
tion as  the   cause    of   any  other.     To 
suppose  that  he  does  so  is  to  ignore  the 
duplex  element  in    our    conception  of 
Matter  and  in   our  use   of  words.     In 
common  language,  we  may  say  that  the 
sun  is  the  cause  of  the  com  ripening,  and 
it  may  be  true  that  the  appearance  of 
the  visual  sensations   we  associate  with 
the  sun  precedes  the  visual  sensations  we 


THE   DOCTRINE    OF   ENERGY 


99 


associate  with  ripened  com ;  but  when 
the  ordinary  man  speaks  in  such  a  case 
of  the  sun  ripening  the  grain,  he  is  not 
thinking  of  the  visual  sensations  associ- 
ated with  the  sun,  but  of  certain  powers 
or  qualities  which,  rightly  or  wrongly, 
he  also  believes  to  be  inherent  in  that 
material  substratum  which  he  likewise 
associates  with  the  name  sun.  It  is  the 
same  in  every  case.  If  a  horse  and  cart 
pass  us,  we  say  that  the  horse  is  the 
cause  of  its  own  and  the  cart's  motion ; 
but  we  do  not  say  so,  because  the  visual 
sensations  associated  with  the  name  horse 
precede  those  associated  with  the  name 
cart ;  in  making  the  statement  we  do  not 
refer  to  the  visual  sensations  associated 
with  the  word  "  horse  "  at  all,  but  to 
the  unseen  Power  or  Energy  which  we  all 
believe  to  be,  in  some  way,  also  included 
in  the  notion  or  idea  of  a  horse. 

It  is  admitted  that,  in  many  of  the  very 
commonest  cases,  we  do  not  attribute  any 


THE   DOCTRINE    OF   ENERGY 

causal  nexus  to  the  successive  appearance 
of  sensations.     We  do  not  do  so  in  the 
case  of  Day  and  Night ;  we  never  dream 
of  saying  that  Day  is  the  cause  of  Night, 
or  Night  of  Day ;  and  no  good  reason  is 
furnished  by  Hume  to  explain  why  we 
should  do  so  in  some  cases  and  not  in  others 
as  strong  or  stronger.     In  point  of  fact, 
we  allege  and  fearlessly  maintain  that,  in 
no  single  case  does  any  man  ever  regard 
a  sensation  as  a  cause  of  another  sensa- 
tion.    Oiir  ivhole  conception  of  Cause  is 
detivedfrom  the  revelations  of  our  active 
existence^  revelations  received  in  the  dawn 
of  Consciousness  and  subsequently  obscured 
and  requiring  to  be  again  analyzed. 

In  our  earliest  experiences,  we  recog- 
nize Volition  as  a  spring  and  initiative 
of  Motion,  but  we  early  find  the  marked 
and  emphatic  difference  between  mere 
willing  and  wishing,  on  the  one  hand,  and 
actual  realized  attainment  of  the  desired 
change,  on  the  other.    We  find  the  suc- 


THE   DOCTRINE    OF   ENERGY 


101 


^  y 


cess  or  failure  of  our  efibrts  depends  on 
the  amount  of  what  we  call  our  Power, 
a  possession  of  our  own,  a  thing  of  va- 
riable and  fluctuating  quantity  which  is 
increased  by  rest  and  food,  and  is  steadily 
consumed  by  being  used.  We  find  this 
a  measurable  and  quantifiable  thing  ;  we 
find  its  exertion,  in  greater  or  less  amount, 
necessary  to  every  change  which  we  can 
effect ;  we  find  it  opposed  often  by  other 
power,  which  may  be  gi'eater  or  smaller, 
and  which  must  be  overcome  if  our  object 
is  to  be  attained.  Its  complete  dis- 
tinctness from  mere  Volition  is  discovered 
in  the  fact  that  its  exertion  often  pro- 
duces, not  the  result  which  we  antici- 
pated, but  other  results,  which  we  did 
not  anticipate  and  could  not  anticipate. 
The  exertion  of  looking  over  a  wall 
results  in  the  experiencing  of  certain 
visual  sensations  which  we  could  not 
have  anticipated  if  we  had  never  seen 
over  that  wall  before.     The  mere  open- 


'■41- 

It  w 

- 1-  ^ 


* 

^ 


102    THE  DOCTRINE  OF  ENERGY 

ing  of  our  eyes  in  the  morning  results  in 
sensations  which,  to  a  certain  extent,  we 
never  can  anticipate,  and  which,  if  we 
have  been  travelling  over-night,  may  be 
wholly  different  from  any  which  we  had 
ever  experienced  before. 

We  say  that  seeing  is  believing,  and 
it  is  doubtless  our  commonest  and  our 
usually  sufficient    test.     But  now  and 
then  we  experience  sensations  as  to  which, 
even  with  the  aid  of  sight,  we  are  puzzled 
to  decide  whether  or  no  they  should  be 
correlated  in  our  mind  with  any  real 
substratum,— some    deceptive    piece    of 
painting,  some   desert  mirage  or  some 
vivid   and   alarming   dream   which   en- 
velops  us  in  a  surrounding  of  experiences 
at  once  seemingly  real  and  at  the  same 
time  fearful  and  improbable.     How  do 
we  proceed  to  determine   whether  our 
experience  is  "  Real  "  or  not  ?    Do  we 
not  proceed   to  "  feel,"  as  we  say,  that 
is,  to  exert  our  active  power  of  move- 


THE  DOCTRINE  OF  ENERGY    103 

ment  in  order  to  ascertain  whether  other 
opposing  power  or  force  is  to  be  associ- 
ated with  the  sense-experience  which 
envelops  us  ?  That  is  what  we  do,  for 
though  we  say  "feel,"  we  mean  "make 
an  active  exertion."  We  may  be  expe- 
riencing tactual  sensations  in  plenty 
without  any  active  motion,  but  that 
is  not  enough.  We  endeavour  to  ascer- 
tain the  presence  or  absence  of  some  of  this 
unseen  Power  or  Energy, 

It  is  in  the  analysis  of  these  expe- 
riences of  our  active  and  causative 
being,  wholly  ignored  by  Berkeley  and 
Hume,  that  we  derive  the  explanation 
of  our  conception  of  Power  and  of  Cause 
and  of  the  true  meaning  and  nature 
of  the  real  entity  which  imderlies  the 
phenomena  of  sensitive  life. 

The  passing  phenomena  of  Sensations 
and  Ideas  are  all  that  we  directly  expe- 
rience. Agnostics  maintain  that  we  can 
know  no  more.     But  even  in  maintaining 


104 


THE   DOCTRINE   OF   ENERGY 


thatj  they  must  reason  and  thus  admit 
the  validity  of  Reasoning. 

Now,  in  the  natural  use  of  our  Reason  we 
all  assume  the  existence  of  certain  hyper- 
physical  realities.  Philosophy  is  a  careful 
examination  ab  initio  of  the  grounds  of  these 
assumptions.  Descartes  formulated  one 
great  inference  which  this  examination 
had  confirmed,  Cogito, — ergo  sum.  This 
expresses  the  ground  of  our  belief  in 
a  Mental  Real  Entity, — our  conscious- 
ness of  its  activity.  Ago,  ergo  jpossum 
might  express  the  ground  of  the  other 
great  proposition  which  affirms  the 
reality  of  a  Non-Mental  Entity,  based 
also  on  our  consciousness  of  its  activity. 

The  influence  of  modem  Science  on 
Philosophy  may  be  traced  not  only  in 

(1)  the  effect  which  the  Copemican 
theory  had  in  developing  the  concep- 
tion of  all-containing  Space,  but  also  in 

(2)  the  Discovery  of  Gravitation  and  other 


THE  DOCTRINE  OF  ENERGY 


105 


physical  forces  which  showed  men  thr.t 
Will,  Intelligence,  Mind,  was  not  always 
or  only  the  originator  of  Motion — of 
changes  in  phenomena. 

It  is  to  these  two  influences  that 
modem  Materialism  owes  its  existence. 
Berkeley  unfortunately  ignored  at  least 
the  latter,  and  attributed,  as  we  have 
seen,  all  origination  of  Motion  to  Spirit. 

It  is  undoubtedly  the  fact  that  some 
motions  are  originated  by  Volition,  and 
whilst  others  are  attributable  to  Natural 
Force,  it  must  be  admitted  that  if  we 
could  trace  the  matter  farther,  we  might 
find  these  others  also  ultimately  attri- 
butable to  Volition.  To  believe  that  we 
would  is  Theism. 

All  those  motions,  which  Volition  of 
Conscious  Beings  does  originate,  are 
nevertheless  dependent  on  their  being  in 
connection  with  more  or  less  of  an  unseen 
enerojetic  substratum,  whose  transmuta- 

T 


M  . 


106    THE  DOCTRINE  OF  ENERGY 

tions  the  Volition  merely  initiates  and 
directs,  and  it  is  natural  to  suppose  that 
all  the  motions  and  transmutations  of  this 
unseen  Entity  are  similarly  originated  by 
a  supreme  Intelligence  or  Will. 

Intelligence — active  and  percipient — 
and  this  unseen  vXt;,  or  substratum,  on 
which  its  actions  are  exerted,  and  out  of 
which  its  perceptions  are  derived — these, 
neither  of  them  objects  of  Sense — are  the 
two  great  real  entities  which  Reason  is 
always  compelled  to  predicate,  though 
our  notions  of  them  may  be  obscure  and 
confused  by  Sense,  and  our  beliefs  im- 
perfect. 

CogitOy  ergo  sum;  Ago  ergo  possum^ 
express  the  conclusions  at  which  Reason 
has  always  unreflectively  arrived. 

The  world  of  sense-phenomena  is  the 
resultant  on  the  subject  of  their  inter- 
action ;  Space  is  a  mere  quality  of  that 
phenomenal  world,   a    category    which 


THE  DOCTRINE  OF  ENERGY 


107 


contains  neither  of  the  real  entities  which 
Reason  reveals. 

It  is  not  necessary  to  suggest  to  the 
reader  the  assistance  which  such  a  theory 
affords  to  a  greatly  canvassed  portion  of 
Kant's  doctrine.  Kant  maintained  that 
all  we  know  is  from  within — "  subjective 
sensational  states  (due  certainly  to  ex- 
ternal antecedents,  which  nevertheless  are 
absolutely  unknown)  realized  into  an 
objective  system  of  experience  by  sub- 
jective intellectual  faculties."  The  con- 
ception of  Energy  supplies  a  clue  to  these 
unknown  external  antecedents — it  corre- 
lates them  with  the  subjective  intellectual 
faculties  by  which  feeling  is  realized  into 
knowledge — it  suggests  the  way  in  which, 
by  virtue  of  our  organic  relation  to  these 
external  antecedents,  the  category  of 
Space  becomes  imposed  upon  our  Intel- 
ligence, and  thus  affords  an  explanation 
of  the  mysterious  joint  relation  which 


'  '^  —  -  —  -  ~   -   ^^^ 


108 


THE   DOCTRINE   OF   ENERGY 


that  category  appears  to  maintain  with 
the  Intellect,  on  the  one  hand,  and  the 
Sensation,  and  its  external  antecedent, 
on  the  other. 


THE    END. 


COLUMBIA  UNIVERSITY  LIBRARIES 


V 


\' 


1010658343 


CD 


CD 


\ 


]■ 


0 


"!•>, 


